Kevan M Sternberg1, Brian Eisner2, Troy Larson3, Natalia Hernandez2, Jullet Han4, Vernon M Pais5. 1. Division of Urology, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT. Electronic address: kevan.sternberg@uvmhealth.org. 2. Department of Urology, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 3. University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT. 4. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. 5. Section of Urology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences between low-dose noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) and renal ultrasound (US) in the identification and measurement of urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at 3 institutions of patients evaluated for flank pain with both renal US and NCCT, within 1 day of one another, from 2012 to 2015. Stone presence and size were compared between imaging modalities. Stone size was determined by largest measured diameter. Stones were grouped into size categories (≤5 mm, 5.1-10 mm, and >10 mm) based on NCCT and compared with US. Statistical analysis was performed using 2-sided t tests. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients received both a renal US and NCCT within 1 day. In 79 patients (51.0%), both US and NCCT identified a stone for size comparison. Fifty-eight patients (37.4%) had a stone visualized on NCCT but not on US, and 2 patients (1.3%) had a stone documented on US but not seen on NCCT. The average NCCT size of the stones missed on US was 4.5 mm. When comparing the average largest stone diameter for US (9.1 mm) vs NCCT (6.9 mm), US overestimated stone size by 2.2 mm (P < .001). US overestimated stone size by 84.6% for stones ≤5 mm, 27.1% for stones 5.1-10 mm, and 3.0% for stones >10 mm. CONCLUSION: US significantly overestimated stone size and this was most pronounced for small (≤5 mm) stones. The potential for systematic overestimation of stone size with standard US techniques should be taken into consideration when evaluating endourologic treatment options.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences between low-dose noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) and renal ultrasound (US) in the identification and measurement of urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at 3 institutions of patients evaluated for flank pain with both renal US and NCCT, within 1 day of one another, from 2012 to 2015. Stone presence and size were compared between imaging modalities. Stone size was determined by largest measured diameter. Stones were grouped into size categories (≤5 mm, 5.1-10 mm, and >10 mm) based on NCCT and compared with US. Statistical analysis was performed using 2-sided t tests. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients received both a renal US and NCCT within 1 day. In 79 patients (51.0%), both US and NCCT identified a stone for size comparison. Fifty-eight patients (37.4%) had a stone visualized on NCCT but not on US, and 2 patients (1.3%) had a stone documented on US but not seen on NCCT. The average NCCT size of the stones missed on US was 4.5 mm. When comparing the average largest stone diameter for US (9.1 mm) vs NCCT (6.9 mm), US overestimated stone size by 2.2 mm (P < .001). US overestimated stone size by 84.6% for stones ≤5 mm, 27.1% for stones 5.1-10 mm, and 3.0% for stones >10 mm. CONCLUSION: US significantly overestimated stone size and this was most pronounced for small (≤5 mm) stones. The potential for systematic overestimation of stone size with standard US techniques should be taken into consideration when evaluating endourologic treatment options.
Authors: Jessica C Dai; Barbrina Dunmire; Ziyue Liu; Kevan M Sternberg; Michael R Bailey; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Jaime E Tierney; Siegfried G Schlunk; Rebecca Jones; Mark George; Pranav Karve; Ravindra Duddu; Brett C Byram; Ryan S Hsi Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Jessica C Dai; Barbrina Dunmire; Kevan M Sternberg; Ziyue Liu; Troy Larson; Jeff Thiel; Helena C Chang; Jonathan D Harper; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Mathew D Sorensen; Jeff Thiel; Jessica C Dai; Michael R Bailey; Barbrina Dunmire; Patrick C Samson; Helena Chang; M Kennedy Hall; Brianna Gutierrez; Robert M Sweet; Jonathan D Harper Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2020-05
Authors: Ryan S Hsi; Siegfried G Schlunk; Jaime E Tierney; Kazuyuki Dei; Rebecca Jones; Mark George; Pranav Karve; Ravindra Duddu; Brett C Byram Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 3.240