Tim Nestler1, Kai Nestler2, Andreas Neisius3, Hendrik Isbarn4, Christopher Netsch5, Stephan Waldeck2, Hans U Schmelz6, Christian Ruf6. 1. Department of Urology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Rübenacher Str. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany. tim-nestler@web.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Barmherzige Brueder Hospital Trier, Trier, Germany. 4. Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Rübenacher Str. 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Uric acid (UA) calculi can be referred to chemolitholysis rather than invasive treatment. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) may be able to distinguish between UA and non-UA (NUA) calculi. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of third-generation DECT for the first time and to investigate whether combining DECT with clinical parameters can increase its predictive accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who presented to our emergency department between January 2015 and March 2017 with urinary stones were prospectively included in this observational study and underwent DECT with subsequent interventional stone removal. Stone composition was analyzed using infrared spectrometry as the gold standard. Predictive accuracy of DECT and clinical covariates was computed by assessing univariate and multivariate areas under the curve (AUCs). RESULTS: Of 84 patients with 144 urinary stones, 10 (11.9%) patients had UA stones according to infrared spectrometry, and the remaining stones were NUA or mixed stones. DECT had a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 98.5% for UA stones. The AUC for urine pH alone was 0.71 and 0.97 for DECT plus urine pH. No UA stones were found in patients with a urine pH above > 5.5. Mean DLP was 225.15 ± 128.60 mGy*cm and mean effective dose was 3.38 ± 1.93 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: DECT is a safe method for assigning patients to oral chemolitholysis. Clinical preselection of patients based on urinary pH (< 6.0) leads to a more liable use of DECT. Third-generation DECT needs significant lower radiation doses compared to previous generations.
PURPOSE:Uric acid (UA) calculi can be referred to chemolitholysis rather than invasive treatment. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) may be able to distinguish between UA and non-UA (NUA) calculi. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of third-generation DECT for the first time and to investigate whether combining DECT with clinical parameters can increase its predictive accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who presented to our emergency department between January 2015 and March 2017 with urinary stones were prospectively included in this observational study and underwent DECT with subsequent interventional stone removal. Stone composition was analyzed using infrared spectrometry as the gold standard. Predictive accuracy of DECT and clinical covariates was computed by assessing univariate and multivariate areas under the curve (AUCs). RESULTS: Of 84 patients with 144 urinary stones, 10 (11.9%) patients had UA stones according to infrared spectrometry, and the remaining stones were NUA or mixed stones. DECT had a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 98.5% for UA stones. The AUC for urine pH alone was 0.71 and 0.97 for DECT plus urine pH. No UA stones were found in patients with a urine pH above > 5.5. Mean DLP was 225.15 ± 128.60 mGy*cm and mean effective dose was 3.38 ± 1.93 mSv. CONCLUSIONS:DECT is a safe method for assigning patients to oral chemolitholysis. Clinical preselection of patients based on urinary pH (< 6.0) leads to a more liable use of DECT. Third-generation DECT needs significant lower radiation doses compared to previous generations.
Authors: Christian Türk; Aleš Petřík; Kemal Sarica; Christian Seitz; Andreas Skolarikos; Michael Straub; Thomas Knoll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Konrad Wilhelm; Martin Schoenthaler; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Franklin Emmanuel Kuehhas; Sabina Sevcenco; Gregor Pache; Mathias Langer; Stefan Bulla; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: Urology Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Murat Akand; Mustafa Koplay; Necat Islamoglu; Murat Gul; Ozcan Kilic; Merter Bora Erdogdu Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Andrea S Klauser; Sylvia Strobl; Christoph Schwabl; Werner Klotz; Gudrun Feuchtner; Bernhard Moriggl; Julia Held; Mihra Taljanovic; Jennifer S Weaver; Monique Reijnierse; Elke R Gizewski; Hannes Stofferin Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-05-16
Authors: Amira Bryll; Wirginia Krzyściak; Anna Jurczak; Robert Chrzan; Anna Lizoń; Andrzej Urbanik Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Julius Henning Niehoff; Alexandra Fiona Carmichael; Matthias Michael Woeltjen; Jan Boriesosdick; Ingo Lopez Schmidt; Arwed Elias Michael; Nils Große Hokamp; Hansjuergen Piechota; Jan Borggrefe; Jan Robert Kroeger Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-06-23