Role of linear tomography in evaluation of patients with nephrolithiasis

Goldwasser, Benad; Cohan, Richard H.; Dunnick, N. Reed; Andriani, Rudy T.; Carson, Culley C.; Weinerth, John L.

doi:10.1016/0090-4295(89)90406-8

Cited by 35 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of investigators have demonstrated the superiority of plain helical CT vs. plain film of the kidneys, ureter and the bladder for the detection renal calculi. Madsen, Schwartz et al and Goldwasser et al reported that 12%, 39% and 47% of patients, respectively had a greater number of stones detected by helical CT than plain abdominal film [24][25][26]. Compared to intravenous urography, the benefits of helical CT can be summarized as no requirement for intravenous contrast material and high sensitivity for calculus detection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Value of Ultrasonography and Helical Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Stone-Free Patients after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (USG and Helical CT after SWL)

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although plain abdominal X-ray has been accepted as the first line diagnostic tool in the follow-up after SWL with its cheap and practical use, helical CT was found to be more valuable in diagnosis of residual stone fragments which has not been found in plain abdominal X-ray. If we take these considerations which can change our clinical approach and patient follow-up into account, we believe that the routine use of helical CT can give more accurate information in patient controls after SWL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Value of Ultrasonography and Helical Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Stone-Free Patients after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (USG and Helical CT after SWL)

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When ultrasound is added to X-ray KUB is sensitivity and specificity is remarkably increased to 96%, and 91% respectively as shown by Mitterberger et al (2007) 10 The use of tomography has been shown to improve the diagnostic accuracy of X-ray KUB in evaluation of urolithiasis by Goldwasser et al (1989 )11 . In 46% of patient"s additional stones were seen on tomograms versus KUB and in 8 % of patients stones were not seen on KUB but identified on tomograms.The stone size was significantly smaller in the patients in whom ultrasound failed to diagnose a stone (4mm vs.6mm).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Use and Efficasy of Different Imaging Techniques in Flank Pain

Gupta¹

2017

IOSR JDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, we have used KUB and tomograms to follow recurrent stone formers to assess for changes in their stone burden. The reason that we used KUB with tomograms v plain KUB was the increased sensitivity of tomograms to detect stones 19 and the assumption that the tomograms contributed only a small amount of radiation. Instead, the radiation exposure from one KUB with three tomograms greatly exceeded that from a KUB and even exceeded that from a stone protocol NCCT performed at our institution (with 3.93 mSv v 0.63 mSv and 3.04 mSv).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%