Jessica C Dai1, Barbrina Dunmire2, Kevan M Sternberg3, Ziyue Liu4, Troy Larson5, Jeff Thiel6, Helena C Chang7, Jonathan D Harper7, Michael R Bailey7,2, Mathew D Sorensen7,8. 1. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356510, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. jcdai@uw.edu. 2. Center for Industrial and Medical Ultrasound, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Division of Urology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Department of Urology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356510, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. 8. Division of Urology, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Posterior acoustic shadow width has been proposed as a more accurate measure of kidney stone size compared to direct measurement of stone width on ultrasound (US). Published data in humans to date have been based on a research using US system. Herein, we compared these two measurements in clinical US images. METHODS: Thirty patient image sets where computed tomography (CT) and US images were captured less than 1 day apart were retrospectively reviewed. Five blinded reviewers independently assessed the largest stone in each image set for shadow presence and size. Shadow size was compared to US and CT stone sizes. RESULTS: Eighty percent of included stones demonstrated an acoustic shadow; 83% of stones without a shadow were ≤ 5 mm on CT. Average stone size was 6.5 ± 4.0 mm on CT, 10.3 ± 4.1 mm on US, and 7.5 ± 4.2 mm by shadow width. On average, US overestimated stone size by 3.8 ± 2.4 mm based on stone width (p < 0.001) and 1.0 ± 1.4 mm based on shadow width (p < 0.0098). Shadow measurements decreased misclassification of stones by 25% among three clinically relevant size categories (≤ 5, 5.1-10, > 10 mm), and by 50% for stones ≤ 5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: US overestimates stone size compared to CT. Retrospective measurement of the acoustic shadow from the same clinical US images is a more accurate reflection of true stone size than direct stone measurement. Most stones without a posterior shadow are ≤ 5 mm.
PURPOSE: Posterior acoustic shadow width has been proposed as a more accurate measure of kidney stone size compared to direct measurement of stone width on ultrasound (US). Published data in humans to date have been based on a research using US system. Herein, we compared these two measurements in clinical US images. METHODS: Thirty patient image sets where computed tomography (CT) and US images were captured less than 1 day apart were retrospectively reviewed. Five blinded reviewers independently assessed the largest stone in each image set for shadow presence and size. Shadow size was compared to US and CT stone sizes. RESULTS: Eighty percent of included stones demonstrated an acoustic shadow; 83% of stones without a shadow were ≤ 5 mm on CT. Average stone size was 6.5 ± 4.0 mm on CT, 10.3 ± 4.1 mm on US, and 7.5 ± 4.2 mm by shadow width. On average, US overestimated stone size by 3.8 ± 2.4 mm based on stone width (p < 0.001) and 1.0 ± 1.4 mm based on shadow width (p < 0.0098). Shadow measurements decreased misclassification of stones by 25% among three clinically relevant size categories (≤ 5, 5.1-10, > 10 mm), and by 50% for stones ≤ 5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: US overestimates stone size compared to CT. Retrospective measurement of the acoustic shadow from the same clinical US images is a more accurate reflection of true stone size than direct stone measurement. Most stones without a posterior shadow are ≤ 5 mm.
Authors: Sutchin R Patel; Paul Stanton; Nathan Zelinski; Edward J Borman; Myron A Pozniak; Stephen Y Nakada; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Kevan M Sternberg; Brian Eisner; Troy Larson; Natalia Hernandez; Jullet Han; Vernon M Pais Journal: Urology Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dean Assimos; Amy Krambeck; Nicole L Miller; Manoj Monga; M Hassan Murad; Caleb P Nelson; Kenneth T Pace; Vernon M Pais; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger; Hassan Razvi; Ojas Shah; Brian R Matlaga Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael N Ferrandino; Aditya Bagrodia; Sean A Pierre; Charles D Scales; Edward Rampersaud; Margaret S Pearle; Glenn M Preminger Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-12-18 Impact factor: 7.450
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: 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: 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