Renal tract calculi: comparison of stone size on plain radiography and noncontrast spiral CT scan
- PMID:17206892
- DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.20.1005
Renal tract calculi: comparison of stone size on plain radiography and noncontrast spiral CT scan
Abstract
Background and purpose: Noncontrast spiral CT (NCCT) has emerged as the investigation of choice in patients presenting with renal-tract calculi. As management guidelines are based on stone size measured on plain radiography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (KUB), it is important to assess the accuracy of stone size measured on NCCT compared with KUB films.
Patients and methods: The NCCT and KUB studies obtained from 24 patients (27 stones) presenting to the emergency department at a major metropolitan hospital were analyzed randomly and independently by two urologists and one uroradiologist. The NCCT scans were assessed separately from the KUB films. Only size in greatest dimension and stone location were recorded.
Results: The stone size was 2 to 38 mm on NCCT scans and 2 to 46 mm on KUB films. The mean stone size was 6.773 +/- 6.146 mm and 7.747 +/- 7.866 mm, respectively (P = 0.0398; Student's t-test). Almost three fourths (70%) of the stones were larger on KUB films than they were on NCCT scans, with a mean difference -0.974 mm (95% confidence interval -5.652, 3.703) for NCCT.
Conclusion: Spiral CT underestimates stone size by approximately 12% compared with KUB films. This error may impact stone management as outlined in guidelines published by the American Urological Association, particularly for stones about 5 mm in greatest dimension. These patients may initially be managed conservatively when intervention would be more appropriate.
Similar articles
- Comparison of helical computerized tomography and plain radiography for estimating urinary stone size.Narepalem N, Sundaram CP, Boridy IC, Yan Y, Heiken JP, Clayman RV.Narepalem N, et al.J Urol. 2002 Mar;167(3):1235-8.J Urol. 2002.PMID:11832704
- Limitations of noncontrast CT for measuring ureteral stones.Van Appledorn S, Ball AJ, Patel VR, Kim S, Leveillee RJ.Van Appledorn S, et al.J Endourol. 2003 Dec;17(10):851-4; discussion 854. doi: 10.1089/089277903772036127.J Endourol. 2003.PMID:14744347
- Correlation of CT scan versus plain radiography for measuring urinary stone dimensions.Tisdale BE, Siemens DR, Lysack J, Nolan RL, Wilson JW.Tisdale BE, et al.Can J Urol. 2007 Apr;14(2):3489-92.Can J Urol. 2007.PMID:17466153
- Radiopacity and hounsfield attenuation of cystine urolithiasis: case series and review of the literature.Patel SR, Wagner LE, Lubner MG, Nakada SY.Patel SR, et al.J Endourol. 2014 Apr;28(4):472-5. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0524. Epub 2013 Dec 30.J Endourol. 2014.PMID:24228639Review.
- An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques.Brisbane W, Bailey MR, Sorensen MD.Brisbane W, et al.Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Nov;13(11):654-662. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.154. Epub 2016 Aug 31.Nat Rev Urol. 2016.PMID:27578040Free PMC article.Review.
Cited by
- Volume should be used instead of diameter for kidney stones between 10 and 20 mm to determine the type of surgery and increase success.Vuruskan E, Dilek O, Karkin K, Unal U, Ayhan L, Sener NC.Vuruskan E, et al.Urolithiasis. 2022 Apr;50(2):215-221. doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01305-6. Epub 2022 Jan 24.Urolithiasis. 2022.PMID:35075495
- Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Ozdedeli K, Cek M.Ozdedeli K, et al.Balkan Med J. 2012 Sep;29(3):230-5. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2012.082. Epub 2012 Sep 1.Balkan Med J. 2012.PMID:25207006Free PMC article.Review.
- Utility and limitation of cumulative stone diameter in predicting urinary stone burden at flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience.Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J.Ito H, et al.PLoS One. 2013 Jun 4;8(6):e65060. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065060. Print 2013.PLoS One. 2013.PMID:23750229Free PMC article.
- A Comparison of Urolithiasis in the Presence and Absence of Microscopic Hematuria in the Emergency Department.Mefford JM, Tungate RM, Amini L, Suh D, Anderson CL, Rudkin SE, Boysen-Osborn M.Mefford JM, et al.West J Emerg Med. 2017 Jun;18(4):775-779. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2017.4.33018. Epub 2017 May 15.West J Emerg Med. 2017.PMID:28611901Free PMC article.
- Lithiasis size estimation variability depending on image technical methodology.Argüelles Salido E, Aguilar García J, Lozano-Blasco JM, Subirá Rios J, Beardo Villar P, Campoy-Martínez P, Medina-López RA.Argüelles Salido E, et al.Urolithiasis. 2013 Nov;41(6):517-22. doi: 10.1007/s00240-013-0597-0. Epub 2013 Aug 3.Urolithiasis. 2013.PMID:23913111
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Related information
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials