Literature DB >> 30649576

In-vitro comparison of different slice thicknesses and kernel settings for measurement of urinary stone size by computed tomography.

Roland Umbach1, Jochen-Klaus Müller2, Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl3, Thomas Knoll3, Jan Peter Jessen3.   

Abstract

Non-contrast enhanced computed tomography (NCCT) is widely used measuring stone size in patients with urolithiasis. We performed an evaluation of the accuracy of stone size measuring via NCCT. In an in-vitro study, we analyzed a total of 38 uric acid and 38 phantom stones. Within NCCT, we used different slice thicknesses (1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, and 3.0 mm) and kernel settings (bone and soft-tissue window). Maximal height, maximal length, and maximal width of each stone were measured on a picture archiving and communication system workstation. Blinded to these results, a second physician measured stone size in the same way using a caliper (real stone size). We used the Bland-Altman method for the analysis of agreement between the two measuring methods. The limit of agreement that was deemed clinical insignificant was ± 1.0 mm. All measurements via NCCT correlated significantly with the real stone size (p < 0.001). This was more pronounced for bone window and smaller slice thickness. Bland-Altman plots showed limits of agreement that exceeded the a priori defined level for all types of measurement with bone window and small slice thickness (1.5 mm) being better than soft-tissue window and large slice thickness (3.0 mm). We conclude that stone size measurement by NCCT with established settings is not exact. Stone size can easily be over- or underestimated by several millimeters. Using bone window and small slice thickness leads to more accurate results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone window; Computed tomography (CT); Soft-tissue window; Stone size; Urolithiasis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30649576     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-019-01109-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  19 in total

1.  Coronal imaging to assess urinary tract stone size.

Authors:  Robert B Nadler; Jeffrey A Stern; Simon Kimm; Frederick Hoff; Alfred W Rademaker
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  CT-based determination of maximum ureteral stone area: a predictor of spontaneous passage.

Authors:  Shadpour Demehri; Michael L Steigner; Aaron D Sodickson; E Andres Houseman; Frank J Rybicki; Stuart G Silverman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Ureteral Stone Diameter on Computerized Tomography Coronal Reconstructions Is Clinically Important and Under-reported.

Authors:  Mustafa Kadihasanoglu; Tracy Marien; Nicole L Miller
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: a replacement for excretory urography in planning treatment.

Authors:  J R Fielding; S G Silverman; S Samuel; K H Zou; K R Loughlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Quantification of preoperative stone burden for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy: current state and future recommendations.

Authors:  Sutchin R Patel; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-02-05       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Alexandra Platon; Olivier T Rutschmann; Franz R Schmidlin; Christophe E Iselin; Christoph D Becker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors.

Authors:  Victoriano Romero; Haluk Akpinar; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2010

8.  Computerized tomography magnified bone windows are superior to standard soft tissue windows for accurate measurement of stone size: an in vitro and clinical study.

Authors:  Brian H Eisner; Avinash Kambadakone; Manoj Monga; James K Anderson; Andrew A Thoreson; Hang Lee; Stephen P Dretler; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Ureterolithiasis: can clinical outcome be predicted with unenhanced helical CT?

Authors:  N Takahashi; A Kawashima; R D Ernst; I C Boridy; S M Goldman; G S Benson; C M Sandler
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrew Worster; Ian Preyra; Bruce Weaver; Ted Haines
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.721

View more
  1 in total

1.  Influence of a Deep Learning Noise Reduction on the CT Values, Image Noise and Characterization of Kidney and Ureter Stones.

Authors:  Andrea Steuwe; Birte Valentin; Oliver T Bethge; Alexandra Ljimani; Günter Niegisch; Gerald Antoch; Joel Aissa
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-05
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.