Ureteral calculi: Diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients

被引:140
作者
Boulay, I
Holtz, P
Foley, WD
White, B
Begun, FP
机构
[1] Med Coll Wisconsin, Dept Radiol, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
[2] Med Coll Wisconsin, Dept Urol, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2214/ajr.172.6.10350277
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether unenhanced helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis, supplemented as necessary with delayed enhanced CT of the pelvis, is sufficient for urologists to treat patients with acute renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS. CT scans from 99 patients were analyzed retrospectively for the presence, size, and location of ureteral calculi and the presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction. Clinical follow-up was analyzed by reviewing charts, directly communicating with patients, and reviewing surgical reports. Clinical information was correlated with CT findings. RESULTS. The findings of 51 CT scans were positive for calculi, and the findings of 48 were negative for calculi. The findings from two CT scans were false-positive, and none of the findings were false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of helical CT were 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. A significant difference in stone size was found between patients who were treated conservatively (3.3 +/- 1.3 Mn) and patients who underwent a urologic procedure (7 +/- 6.2 mm) (p < .01) and between patients in whom successful ureteral stent placement was the sole intervention (3.9 +/- 2.8 mm) and patients in whom initial stent placement failed and who then underwent a second urologic procedure (7.4 +/- 3 mm) (p < .05). We found no statistically significant difference between the conservatively and interventionally treated groups with respect to stone location. The presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION. Stone size alone was found to correlate with patient treatment. Stone location and the presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction did not affect patient treatment. Because the degree of obstruction and relative renal function are not relevant to the initial treatment of patients with ureteral stone obstruction, CT is adequate for both diagnosis and treatment.
引用
收藏
页码:1485 / 1490
页数:6
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   URETERAL JETS - EVALUATION OF NORMAL FLOW DYNAMICS WITH COLOR DOPPLER SONOGRAPHY [J].
COX, IH ;
ERICKSON, SJ ;
FOLEY, WD ;
DEWIRE, DM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1992, 158 (05) :1051-1055
[2]   The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain [J].
Dalrymple, NC ;
Verga, M ;
Anderson, KR ;
Bove, P ;
Covey, AM ;
Rosenfield, AT ;
Smith, RC .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1998, 159 (03) :735-740
[3]   COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY OF URINARY CALCULI [J].
FEDERLE, MP ;
MCANINCH, JW ;
KAISER, JA ;
GOODMAN, PC ;
ROBERTS, J ;
MALL, JC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1981, 136 (02) :255-258
[4]   Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: A replacement for excretory urography [J].
Fielding, JR ;
Steele, G ;
Fox, LA ;
Heller, H ;
Loughlin, KR .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 157 (06) :2071-2073
[5]   Spiral CT in the evaluation of flank pain: Overall accuracy and feature analysis [J].
Fielding, JR ;
Fox, LA ;
Heller, H ;
Seltzer, SE ;
Tempany, CM ;
Silverman, SG ;
Steele, G .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 1997, 21 (04) :635-638
[6]   MORTALITY DURING EXCRETORY UROGRAPHY - MAYO-CLINIC EXPERIENCE [J].
HARTMAN, GW ;
HATTERY, RR ;
WITTEN, DM ;
WILLIAMSON, B .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1982, 139 (05) :919-922
[7]  
HUBNER WA, 1993, EUR UROL, V24, P172
[8]   Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: Incidence of associated urinary tract findings [J].
Katz, DS ;
Lane, MJ ;
Sommer, FG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1996, 166 (06) :1319-1322
[9]   ULTRASOUND VERSUS EXCRETORY UROGRAPHY IN EVALUATING ACUTE FLANK PAIN [J].
LAING, FC ;
JEFFREY, RB ;
WING, VW .
RADIOLOGY, 1985, 154 (03) :613-616
[10]  
LEVENTHAL EK, 1995, J UROLOGY, V153, P34, DOI 10.1097/00005392-199501000-00013