OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare ultrasonography (US) and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for diagnosing pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional ethics committee, and informed consent was waived. From March 2016 to March 2017, 100 consecutive patients met the selection criteria and were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly selected in a 1:1 ratio and were allocated to one of the following two imaging groups: US or abdominal LDCT. LDCT examinations were performed using a 320-detector row CT. Radiation dose analysis was performed using Radimetrics. US examinations were performed using the Aplio 500 ultrasound system. The presence of urolithiasis, anatomical location of urolithiasis, and measurements of renal stones were evaluated and recorded. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between US and standard-dose CT (SDCT) with respect to the diagnosis of urolithiasis, anatomical location of urolithiasis, and measurements of renal stones (p<0.001, p=0.005, and p=0.03, respectively). The mean effective radiation dose of LDCT was 1.44±0.34 mSv and that of SDCT was calculated to be 4.36±1.33 mSv. There was no statistically significant difference between LDCT and SDCT with regard to the diagnosis of urolithiasis, anatomical location of urolithiasis and measurements of renal stones (p=1 for all). The diagnostic accuracy of US and LDCT was 0.68 and 1.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Low-dose computed tomography had 1/3 SDCT radiation dose, and LDCT and SDCT accurately diagnosed pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department. US had a lower accuracy than SDCT and LDCT for diagnosing pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department. LDCT can be an alternative for SDCT for diagnosing pediatric urolithiasis.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare ultrasonography (US) and low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for diagnosing pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional ethics committee, and informed consent was waived. From March 2016 to March 2017, 100 consecutive patients met the selection criteria and were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly selected in a 1:1 ratio and were allocated to one of the following two imaging groups: US or abdominal LDCT. LDCT examinations were performed using a 320-detector row CT. Radiation dose analysis was performed using Radimetrics. US examinations were performed using the Aplio 500 ultrasound system. The presence of urolithiasis, anatomical location of urolithiasis, and measurements of renal stones were evaluated and recorded. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between US and standard-dose CT (SDCT) with respect to the diagnosis of urolithiasis, anatomical location of urolithiasis, and measurements of renal stones (p<0.001, p=0.005, and p=0.03, respectively). The mean effective radiation dose of LDCT was 1.44±0.34 mSv and that of SDCT was calculated to be 4.36±1.33 mSv. There was no statistically significant difference between LDCT and SDCT with regard to the diagnosis of urolithiasis, anatomical location of urolithiasis and measurements of renal stones (p=1 for all). The diagnostic accuracy of US and LDCT was 0.68 and 1.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Low-dose computed tomography had 1/3 SDCT radiation dose, and LDCT and SDCT accurately diagnosed pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department. US had a lower accuracy than SDCT and LDCT for diagnosing pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department. LDCT can be an alternative for SDCT for diagnosing pediatric urolithiasis.
Authors: Hao Xiang; Michael Chan; Victoria Brown; Ya Ruth Huo; Lewis Chan; Lloyd Ridley Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Chandra Aubin; John Bailitz; Rimon N Bengiamin; Carlos A Camargo; Jill Corbo; Anthony J Dean; Ruth B Goldstein; Richard T Griffey; Gregory D Jay; Tarina L Kang; Dana R Kriesel; O John Ma; Michael Mallin; William Manson; Joy Melnikow; Diana L Miglioretti; Sara K Miller; Lisa D Mills; James R Miner; Michelle Moghadassi; Vicki E Noble; Gregory M Press; Marshall L Stoller; Victoria E Valencia; Jessica Wang; Ralph C Wang; Steven R Cummings Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-09-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gabrielle C Colleran; Michael J Callahan; Harriet J Paltiel; Caleb P Nelson; Bartley G Cilento; Michelle A Baum; Jeanne S Chow Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-11-04
Authors: Carlo Passerotti; Jeanne S Chow; Andres Silva; Cynthia L Schoettler; Ilina Rosoklija; Jeannette Perez-Rossello; Marc Cendron; Bartley G Cilento; Richard S Lee; Caleb P Nelson; Carlos R Estrada; Stuart B Bauer; Joseph G Borer; David A Diamond; Alan B Retik; Hiep T Nguyen Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ibraheem M Malkawi; Esther Han; Christopher S Atalla; Richard A Santucci; Brian O'Neil; Jason B Wynberg Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Ahmed Eid Alahmadi; Fawaz Mobasher Aljuhani; Sultan Abdulwadoud Alshoabi; Khalid M Aloufi; Walaa M Alsharif; Abdulrahman M Alamri Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2020-09-30
Authors: C Seitz; T Bach; M Bader; W Berg; T Knoll; A Neisius; C Netsch; M Nothacker; S Schmidt; M Schönthaler; R Siener; R Stein; M Straub; W Strohmaier; C Türk; B Volkmer Journal: Urologe A Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Bo Mussmann; Maryann Hardy; Helene Jung; Ming Ding; Palle J Osther; Maja Lynge Fransen; Pernille Wied Greisen; Ole Graumann Journal: J Med Radiat Sci Date: 2021-06-22