Article

Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial.

Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland.
European Radiology (Impact Factor: 3.55). 12/2003; 13(11):2513-20. DOI:10.1007/s00330-003-1937-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Unenhanced helical computed tomography (UHCT) has evolved into a well-accepted alternative to intravenous urography (IVU) in patients with acute flank pain and suspected ureterolithiasis. The purpose of our randomized prospective study was to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of UHCT vs IVU in the normal clinical setting with special interest on economic impact, applied radiation dose and time savings in patient management. A total of 122 consecutive patients with acute flank pain suggestive of urolithiasis were randomized for UHCT ( n=59) or IVU ( n=63). Patient management (time, contrast media), costs and radiation dose were analysed. The films were independently interpreted by four radiologists, unaware of previous findings, clinical history and clinical outcome. Alternative diagnoses if present were assessed. Direct costs of UHCT and IVU are nearly identical (310/309 Euro). Indirect costs are much lower for UHCT because it saves examination time and when performed immediately initial abdominal plain film (KUB) and sonography are not necessary. Time delay between access to the emergency room and start of the imaging procedure was 32 h 7 min for UHCT and 36 h 55 min for IVU. The UHCT took an average in-room time of 23 min vs 1 h 21 min for IVU. Mild to moderate adverse reactions for contrast material were seen in 3 (5%) patients. The UHCT was safe, as no contrast material was needed. The mean applied radiation dose was 3.3 mSv for IVU and 6.5 mSv for UHCT. Alternative diagnoses were identified in 4 (7%) UHCT patients and 3 (5%) IVU patients. Sensitivity and specificity of UHCT and IVU was 94.1 and 94.2%, and 85.2 and 90.4%, respectively. In patients with suspected renal colic KUB and US may be the least expensive and most easily accessable modalities; however, if needed and available, UHCT can be considered a better alternative than IVU because it has a higher diagnostic accuracy and a better economic impact since it is more effective, faster, less expensive and less risky than IVU. In addition, it also has the capability of detecting various additional renal and extrarenal pathologies.

0 0
 · 
1 Bookmark
 · 
111 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: An opportunity exists to evaluate the quality of care in patients undergoing intravenous pyelogram (IVP) imaging and to define the role of IVP in the computed tomography scan era. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, inpatient versus outpatient setting, indication for IVP, physician/specialty who ordered IVP, and the need for subsequent imaging within a 30-day period in patients who underwent IVP from October 2007 to December 2011. Chi-square test was used to compare the number of additional radiologic examinations ordered within 30 days of the initial IVP across the different specialties ordering IVPs. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty patients underwent IVP imaging during the study period. The primary reason to order an IVP was the evaluation of urolithiasis/flank pain (50 %), followed by urologic evaluation after surgery (23 %). Three hundred and twenty-five patients (48 %) subsequently had an additional 547 radiologic studies within 30 days of the IVP to further evaluate their condition. Of the 325 patients undergoing additional imaging studies, 36 % had differing or additional diagnostic information noted that could change medical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior imaging of the urologic patient by IVP leads to the acquisition of additional imaging studies to render a diagnosis. IVP has a limited clinical role, and thus, its use should be strictly limited to highly select cases.
    World Journal of Urology 04/2013; · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether computed tomography (CT) parameters can predict the success of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and establish a model for predicting the success rates of a single URSL procedure for the treatment of a single ureteral stone. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 237 patients who underwent URSL for ureteral stones diagnosed by CT between January 2009 and June 2012. Stone-free status was defined as the absence of stones or residual stone fragments <2 mm by ureteroscopy and plain abdominal radiography. We analyzed the correlations between the outcome of URSL and the patients' sex, age, height, body weight, body mass index, and history of ureteral stone. Stone factors such as the diameter (D), stone height (H), volumetric stone burden (VSB; D (2) × H × 5 mm × π × 1/6), estimated stone location (ESL; number of axial cut images between the stone and uretero-vesical junction), tissue rim sign (RS; 0-3), perinephric edema (0-3), hydronephrosis (0-3), and Hounsfield unit (HU) were also analyzed. We then developed a model to predict the probability of successful URSL by applying a logistic model to our data. The success rate of URSL was 85.7 % (203/237). Univariate analysis found that stone diameter, length, VSB, ESL, HU and RS significantly affected the stone-free rate. Multivariate analysis indicated that stone diameter, ESL and RS independently influenced the stone-free rate. The logistic model indicated that success rates = 1/[1 + exp{-6.146 + 0.071(D) + 0.153(ESL) + 1.534(RS)}] with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.825. Stone diameter, ESL, and RS were independent predictors of the outcome of a single URSL for a single ureteral stone.
    Urolithiasis. 10/2013;
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify the parameters on noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) that best predict the success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We reviewed the records of 75 patients who underwent SWL for urinary calculi measuring 5 to 20 mm. Using NCCT images, we estimated the largest stone cross-sectional area and contoured the inner edge of the stone. Clinical outcome was classified as successful (stone-free or <4 mm in diameter) or failed (stone fragments, ≥4 mm). The impact of preoperative parameters was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. The overall success rate was 73.3%. Average stone attenuation value, stone length, and stone cross-sectional area in the success and failure groups were 627.4±166.5 HU (Hounsfield unit) vs. 788.1±233.9 HU (p=0.002), 11.7±3.8 mm vs. 14.2±3.6 mm (p=0.015), and 0.31±0.17 cm(2) vs. 0.57±0.41 cm(2) (p<0.001), respectively. In the multivariate analysis, stone attenuation value was the only independent predictor of SWL success (p=0.023), although stone cross-sectional area had a tendency to be associated with SWL success (p=0.053). Patients were then classified into four groups by using cutoff values of 780 HU for stone attenuation value and 0.4 cm(2) for cross-sectional area. By use of these cutoff values, the group with a low stone attenuation value and a low cross-sectional area was more than 11.6 times as likely to have a successful result on SWL as were all other groups (odds ratio, 11.6; 95% confidence interval, 3.9 to 54.7; p<0.001). Stone attenuation value and stone cross-sectional area are good predictors of extracorporeal SWL outcome.
    Korean journal of urology 07/2013; 54(7):454-9.

Full-text

View
1 Download