Urinary stone size estimation: a new segmentation algorithm-based CT method

Lidén, Mats; Andersson, Torbjörn; Broxvall, Mathias; Thunberg, Per; Geijer, Håkan

doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2309-x

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the CT allows reconstructions. Support softwares calculating the stone burden have been developed and have shown a significant reduction in "operator dependent" variations, therefore allowing a more accurate automated assessment [5,21]. Promoting use of these computational tools in current practice seems valuable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation

Treigny

Nasr

Almont

et al. 2015

Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Cumulated Stone Diameter: A Limited Tool for Stone Burden Estimation

Treigny

Nasr

Almont

et al. 2015

Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Today CT is the gold standard imaging modality in the work up of suspected renal colic. Ccompared with the other imaging methods, MDCT has the highest sensitivity and specificity to detect stones and it is the most accurate imaging modality to measure stone size [2,3]. Several stone parameters that reflect stone burden, including the cumulative stone diameter (CSD), stone surface area (SA), and volume, have been evaluated for CT imaging of suspected urolithiasis [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of volume, position of stone, and hydronephrosis with microhematuria in patients with solitary urolithiasis

Okumuş

2013

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine the relationship between hematuria and volume, position of stone, and hydronephrosis in patients with a solitary stone, using unenhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).Material/MethodsThis retrospective study evaluated the clinical and radiological records of 83 patients undergoing MDCT for the evaluation of acute flank pain and suspected renal colic, who also underwent a microscopic urinalysis at the emergency department of our hospital during a 1-year period. Inclusion criteria of the MDCT study were solitary urolithiasis and cumulative stone diameter under 1 cm.ResultsA total of 83 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 42.1±14.4 years; 48 (57.8%) were females and 35 (42.2%) were males. Detection of 5 or more red cells on urinalysis was regarded as microscopic hematuria, and was positive in 46 patients (55.4%). There was a positive correlation between the position of the stone (especially upper two-thirds ureteral stones) and microhematuria rate (r: 0.28, p=0.009). There was a statistically significant difference in presence of hydronephrosis between the microhematuria (36 patients, 78%) and non-microhematuria (12 patients, 32%) groups (p<0.001). The median stone volume between the microhematuria and non-microhematuria groups were not statistically different, 37.5 mm3 (range 5–425) and 28 mm3 (range 4–412), respectively (p=0.39).ConclusionsAlthough stone volume is one of the best indicators of stone burden, it was not correlated with microhematuria. However, in patients with renal colic, microhematuria requires ultrasound examination whether hydronephrosis and ureteral stones are present or not. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

show abstract

“…However, others have consistently demonstrated the accuracy and precision of attenuation threshold segmentation algorithms to measure stone parameters, particularly axial dimensions and volume. 15,17 Second, we did not examine how each individual parameter may influence clinical outcomes. However, none of the included parameters are novel but instead were explicitly selected because of their welldocumented influence on clinical outcomes in urinary stone disease.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Since that original application, it has been extended, at least in a limited capacity to calculate renal stone volume. 11,12,[14][15][16][17] Despite the promise of this automation to provide accurate clinically relevant stone parameters, it has yet to gain popularity. We believe that this is in large part due to the lack of a freely available, user-friendly software package capable of analyzing CT imaging data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%