Urinary Calculi Imaging in ENGLISH

Urinary Calculi Imaging
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/381993-overview#showall

Author: J Kevin Smith, MD, PhD; Chief Editor: Eugene C Lin, MD more...
Overview
Preferred examination
The goals of imaging of urinary calculi are to determine the presence of stones within the urinary tract, evaluate for complications, estimate the likelihood of stone passage, confirm stone passage, assess the stone burden, and evaluate disease activity.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Images of stone disease are provided below:
Magnified scout intravenous urogram shows a large, relatively lucent calculus in the lower pole of the right kidney.
Page 1 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Scout intravenous urogram shows a smooth, dense, round calculus in the left kidney.
Renal sonogram demonstrates an echogenic shadowing calculus in the renal collecting system with hydronephrosis.
Contrast-enhanced CT scan demonstrates an opaque staghorn calculus filling the left renal collecting system
Page 2 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Intravenous urogram (10-min delay) Magnified view of the left ureterocele with a large stone in it.
Prone nonenhanced CT image shows that the stone in the left ureterovesical junction does not move to the dependent portion of the bladder. This finding indicates that it is still in the distal ureter at the ureterovesical junction and that it has not passed into the bladder.
Contrast-enhanced CT image of the right kidney shows a cluster of calyceal calculi without hydronephrosis.
When acute flank pain suggests the passage of a urinary stone, many methods of examination can be used.[8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] Often, conventional radiography is initially used to screen for stones, bowel abnormalities, or free intra-abdominal air. Radiographs can also be used to monitor the passage of visible stones.
Page 3 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Intravenous urography (IVU) (excretory urography) provides important physiologic information regarding the degree of obstruction. Ultrasonography (US) is useful in young or pregnant patients[20, 21] and in patients allergic to iodinated contrast material. US is also helpful in problem solving. All of these methods have become less useful with the advent of more sensitive and specific nonenhanced computed tomography (CT) scanning. When CT is available, it is now considered the examination of choice for the detection and localization of urinary stones. Almost all studies conducted to date show that IVU provides no additional clinically important information after nonenhanced CT is performed. As a result of the higher radiation dose of CT, conventional or digital radiography should be used to monitor the passage of stones if radiographic follow-up studies are indicated and if the stone is visible on conventional radiographs.[22] Passage of a urinary stone is the single most common cause of acute ureteral obstruction and affects as many as 12% of the population. The pain may be some of the most severe pain that humans experience, and complications of stone disease may result in severe infection; renal failure; or, in rare cases, death.[23]
Limitations of techniques
Because of the higher radiation dose with CT, conventional or digital radiography should be used to monitor the passage of stones if radiographic follow-up is believed to be indicated and if the stone is visible on conventional radiographs. Pregnant or pediatric patients may be imaged with US first to avoid radiation exposure. The rare false-negative finding is usually due to reader error or a protease-inhibitor CT-lucent stone. Falsepositive results are usually due to phleboliths adjacent to the ureter. In some cases, intravenous contrast material may be needed to opacify the ureter. Ultrasonography (US) has limited sensitivity for smaller stones, and does not depict the ureters well. It should be used mainly in patients who are young, those who are pregnant, or those undergoing multiple examinations (eg, patients with spine injury). IVU is the traditional examination for the assessment of urinary stone disease, and it does provide physiologic information related to the degree of obstruction. The radiation dose is generally smaller than that of CT, but it is of the same order of magnitude. Intravenous contrast is required, with
Page 4 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
resultant risks of an allergic reaction or nephrotoxicity. IVU is less sensitive than CT, especially for small or nonobstructing stones.
Radiography
Conventional radiography
Conventional radiography, as shown in the image below, is often performed as a preliminary examination in patients with abdominal pain possibly resulting from urinary calculi. These images should be obtained before contrast material is administered to prevent obscuring calcifications within the collecting system or calyceal diverticula. Conventional radiographs should include the entire urinary tract, and, often, 2 images are required.[24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]
Abdominal radiograph shows calcification filling the left collecting system. This finding is consistent with a staghorn calculus. For its size, the stone is relatively lucent.
Stones are often found at key points of narrowing such as the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ), the ureterovesical junction (UVJ), and the point at which the ureter crossing the iliac vessels. An addition site is on the right side where the ureter passes through the root of the mesentery. Calcium stones as small as 1-2 mm can be seen. Cystine stones as small as 3-4 mm may be depicted, but uric acid stones are usually not seen unless they have become calcified. Typically, phleboliths are round or oval, and they may demonstrate a central lucency. However, they are often difficult to distinguish from ureteral calculi. Phleboliths in the pelvis are usually located lower than and lateral to the ureter, but they overlap with the ureter. Because gonadal veins parallel
Page 5 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
the upper ureters, contrast enhancement may be needed to opacify the ureter and demonstrate the extraurinary location of phleboliths in the gonadal veins. An erect or posterior oblique radiograph obtained on the side of the calcification may help in distinguishing urinary stones from extraurinary calcifications. This view can also depict calcifications that are projected over the sacrum or transverse processes on the frontal view. Preinjection renal tomography may depict additional stones, and it can be used to confirm the relationship of stones to the kidneys. Because stones are more visible with a lower peak kilovoltage (kVp), maintaining a maximum of 60-80 kVp is best, if possible. Larger patients may require a higher peak kilovoltage for acceptable exposure and scatter. In this situation, compression of the abdomen and collimation is critical. Mild bowel preparation may be helpful for increasing the sensitivity of conventional radiography for small stones in patients undergoing screening or follow-up observation for stones.
Intravenous urography
Intravenous urography, as shown in the images below, is useful for confirming the exact location of a stone within the urinary tract. IVU depicts anatomic abnormalities such as dilated calyces, calyceal diverticula, duplication, UPJ obstruction, retrocaval ureter, and others that may predispose patients to stone formation or alter therapy. Because contrast agents can obscure stones in the collecting system, scouting the entire urinary tract prior to their administration is critical.
Page 6 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Magnified scout intravenous urogram shows a large, relatively lucent calculus in the lower pole of the right kidney.
Intravenous urogram. After the intravenous injection, contrast material in the collecting system obscures the calculus.
Scout intravenous urogram shows a smooth stone in the right kidney.
Page 7 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Intravenous urogram obtained 5 minutes after the intravenous injection. Contrast material in the collecting system obscures the stone.
When an acute urinary stone is the primary consideration, compression may not be used to increase sensitivity for detection of low-grade obstruction. A caveat is that the contralateral kidney may have an abnormality that requires ureteric compression for adequate examination. In rare cases, the use of compression has been associated with forniceal rupture. When a stone causes acute obstruction, an obstructive nephrogram may be present. This may be prolonged and hyperopaque, with increasing opacity over time. The nephrogram of acute obstruction is usually homogeneous, but may also be striated or occasionally not visible on radiographs.[31] Other signs include delayed excretion, dilatation to the point of obstruction, or blunting of the calyceal fornices. Immediately after the passage of a stone, residual mild obstruction or edema can be detected at the UVJ. Delayed images may be needed to opacify to the point of the obstruction, but using gravity to position the more opaque and more distal contrast materialladen-urine is also possible by placing the patient in a prone or erect position. Extravasation of urine at the fornices may result in pyelosinus or pyelolymphatic extravasation, which is often first indicated by blurring of the calyceal fornices. Greater extravasation may outline the collecting system, and the contrast may dissect into the perinephric space; however, if the urine is not infected, this is usually clinically insignificant.
Degree of confidence
Although 90% of urinary calculi are opaque on abdominal radiographs, the sensitivity for the prospective identification of individual stones is only 5060%, and the specificity is only approximately 70%. Approximately 10% of stones are radiolucent on conventional radiographs.
False positives/negatives
Occasionally, false-positive findings result from extrarenal calcification, but these are usually correctly identified with IVU. Lucent stones appear as filling defects on IVU, but they are not distinguished from nonstone-filling defects such as transitional cell carcinomas or blood clots. US and CT are
Page 8 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
effective tools in making this distinction; however, much of the ureter cannot be visualized with US.
Computed Tomography
With a sensitivity of 94-97% and a specificity of 96-100%, helical CT is the most sensitive radiologic examination for the detection, localization, and characterization of urinary calcifications; therefore, helical CT is considerably more effective than IVU.[32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39] Helical CT scans frequently depict non-obstructing stones that are missed on intravenous urography (IVU). CT is faster and no contrast agent is needed in most patients. CT easily differentiates between non-opaque stones and blood clots or tumors (compared with IVU, which may depict only a filling defect). In addition, helical CT is better than US or IVU in detecting other causes of abdominal pain. In fact, in most studies, IVU added little or no information.[40, 41] Rarely, pure matrix stones may demonstrate soft-tissue opacity on CT scans, and indinavir stones appear lucent.[42] However, all other stones appear opaque on CT scans.[43]
Technique
Because stones in the collecting system may be obscured by contrast material, nonenhanced CT, as shown in the images below, is usually performed.[44, 45, 46, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52] Helical CT is important to avoid missing stones because of section misregistration. A 5-mm helical technique with a pitch of 1.5:1 or less is preferred, although some radiologists choose to use a pitch of as much as 2:1.[53, 54, 55] The kidneys and, if possible, the entire abdomen should be scanned during a single breath hold to prevent section misregistration.[56, 57, 58]
Page 9 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Axial nonenhanced CT section at the level of the kidney demonstrates an attenuating proximal ureteral calculus (arrow). No significant hydronephrosis is identified. CT can be performed much more rapidly than urography and without the use of intravenous contrast material.
Axial nonenhanced CT image at the level of the kidneys shows bilateral renal calculi, right hydronephrosis, and moderate perinephric fluid.
Axial nonenhanced CT image of the urinary bladder demonstrates an attenuating calculus at the right ureteropelvic junction.
Page 10 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Nonenhanced CT image of the pelvis shows dilatation of the distal left ureter and mild periureteral fluid near the left ureterovesical junction.
Nonenhanced CT image of the pelvis shows a small attenuating stone at the left ureterovesical junction.
Because patients with stones are often young and because stone disease may recur, minimizing the radiation dose is critical.[59] A fairly high level of noise as a result of the inherently high contrast levels is tolerable in most patients. Reported radiation doses for CT are 2.8-4.5 mSv compared with 1.3-1.5 mSv for a 3-image IVU. However, the uterine dose is approximately 0.006 Gy for 4-image IVU compared with 0.0046 Gy for nonenhanced CT.[60] At the authors' institution, approximately 12% (10-20%) of patients who undergo nonenhanced CT for possible urinary stones receive intravenous contrast material for further evaluation. To discern between phleboliths and
Page 11 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
urinary stones, 50 mL of low-osmolar contrast agent should be administered. After 3-5 minutes, a 5-mm helical scan is obtained through the area of concern. Fewer contrast-enhanced studies are needed with increasing experience. Soft tissue around the rim of a calculus can differentiate it from a phlebolith. A phlebolith may have a comet tail of soft tissue extending from it; this finding differentiates it from a calculus.[61] On CT scans, phleboliths do not have radiolucent centers, as often seen on plain radiographs.[43, 62] When contrast-enhanced scans, as shown in the images below, are required to evaluate pain not related to stones, routine abdominal and/or pelvic CT should be performed.[63] In this situation, 100-150 mL of a lowosmolar oral and rectal contrast agent is used, and a 5-mm helical CT scan is obtained with a pitch of 1.5:1. Patient selection determines the number of examinations needed.
Contrast-enhanced CT section reveals a dense calculus in the right kidney, but the hydronephrosis has resolved.
Axial contrast-enhanced CT scan. The excretory phase image through the kidneys shows extravasation of contrast material in and near the renal pelvis and surrounding the proximal ureter, which is opacified. The finding is consistent with fornix rupture.
Page 12 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Axial contrast-enhanced CT image through the ureterovesical junction confirms the stone within a left ureterocele. A Foley catheter balloon is visible in the bladder.
Contrast-enhanced CT image of the lower abdomen shows a tiny, obstructing, left ureteral calculus.
Page 13 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Contrast-enhanced CT image shows a patchy area of hypo-opacity consistent with pyelonephritis.
Stones at the UVJ may be difficult to distinguish from stones that have already passed into the bladder. If the distinction changes therapy, a repeat scan through the UVJ in the prone position may be helpful. Stones that have already passed into the bladder will drop into a dependent location.[64]
CT findings
CT may depict the following:

Stones in the ureter Enlarged kidneys Hydronephrosis (83% sensitive, 94% specific) Perinephric fluid (82% sensitive, 93% specific) Ureteral dilatation (90% sensitive, 93% specific) Soft-tissue rim sign (good positive predictive value with a positive odds ratio of 31:1); see the image below.[65, 66]
Page 14 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Nonenhanced CT image shows an obstructing left proximal ureteral calculus with a slight soft-tissue rim around the stone (ie, rim sign).
The amount of perinephric fluid is correlated with the degree of obstruction seen on IVU, and as with the obstruction, the amount of fluid is correlated with the likelihood of stone passage. Normal hyperattenuating renal pyramids sometimes are seen. These indicate that significant obstruction is not present. However, this finding has been seen with proven ureteral calculi and is often absent in patients without stones. For this reason, the usefulness of IVU is limited. If contrast material is administered, a delayed or hyperattenuating nephrogram may also be visible on CT scans if the ureter has an obstruction. Conventional radiography may be helpful in visualizing larger stones, once they are identified on CT scans, to provide a baseline to follow passage of the stone. If kidney, ureter, and bladder radiographs fail to depict the stone, CT may be needed to follow its passage. Approximately 40-55% of stones are not visible on abdominal radiographs. Almost no stones with attenuation values of less than 200 HU are visible, and repeat CT scans are usually required if passage of the stone is to be followed. Cystine and urate stones have an attenuation of 100-500 HU; calcium stones usually demonstrate attenuation higher than 700 HU. Considerable overlap exists in the CT attenuation values of calcium stones.
Page 15 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Special concerns
In the diagnosis and treatment of kidney stones, special concerns exist in patients who are pregnant, in those who have contraindications to the use of contrast media, and in those with renal insufficiency. Pregnancy does not predispose patients to stone formation; however, stone formation is a complication in as many as 0.05% of pregnancies, and the diagnosis may be difficult to establish with imaging because of the displacement and obscuration of organs by the enlarged uterus and fetus.[20] Consider using US first in a pregnant patient, especially in the first trimester. IVU can be used, but the views should be limited to scout and 10- to 30-minute images if possible.[67] CT can also be useful, and the radiation dose may be justified (especially if the clinical picture is confusing), because any fetal damage is unlikely at the typical radiation doses. Minimize the dose by increasing the pitch and decreasing the milliamperage. MRI may be a useful tool for problem solving. Nonenhanced CT results are usually diagnostic,[68] but if contrast material is needed, actions can be taken to decrease the risk of an adverse reaction in patients. The patient can be premedicated with steroids and histamine blockers. Use of low-osmolar contrast agent also helps. Use of iodinated contrast agents should be avoided in patients who have had previous lifethreatening reactions. Nonenhanced CT is usually sufficient with the aid of US and MRI as problem-solving tools. Nuclear scintigraphy may also be helpful in confirming obstruction.[69] Usually, in patients with renal insufficiency, nonenhanced CT is sufficient. Very poor renal function results in a failure to opacify the collecting system. As in pregnant patients, US, MRI, and scintigraphy can be useful as problem-solving tools. If contrast material is used for IVU or for problem solving with CT, nephrotoxicity and allergy-like reactions are possible. Patients may potentially sue for contrast materialrelated injuries if nonenhanced CT was available but not used. Radiation exposure should be minimized in pregnant women, and female patients should be questioned carefully. If needed, a pregnancy test should be performed prior to CT scanning or radiography. US may be used initially in pregnant or pediatric patients, but CT may be indicated to confirm or
Page 16 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
diagnose urinary stone disease and exclude other pelvic pathology in pregnant women.[70]
Individual CT signs are associated with varying degrees of confidence, as noted in CT findings above. False-positive results are almost exclusively the result of a phlebolith adjacent to the ureter. False-negative results are primarily due to indinavir radiolucent stones and error. CT scans often suggest an alternative or additional diagnosis when renal stone disease is clinically suspected.[71, 72]
Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Stones are not directly visible on MRIs because they produce no signal. However, they may be indirectly visualized as a filling defect in the ureter or collecting system on heavily T2-weighted images or on gadoliniumenhanced T1-weighted images.[73, 74, 75, 76] MRI can be useful as a problemsolving tool if the use of iodinated contrast material or radiation is contraindicated (eg, during pregnancy). Gadolinium-based contrast agents have been linked to the development of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) or nephrogenic fibrosing dermopathy (NFD). The disease has occurred in patients with moderate to end-stage renal disease after being given a gadolinium-based contrast agent to enhance MRI or MRA scans. NSF/NFD is a debilitating and sometimes fatal disease. Characteristics include red or dark patches on the skin; burning, itching, swelling, hardening, and tightening of the skin; yellow spots on the whites of the eyes; joint stiffness with trouble moving or straightening the arms, hands, legs, or feet; pain deep in the hip bones or ribs; and muscle weakness.
Ultrasonography
On sonograms, stones are demonstrated as bright echogenic foci with posterior acoustic shadowing. Stones are visualized fairly well with US in the kidneys and the distal ureter at or near the UVJ, especially if dilatation is present. US is good for the visualization of complications such as hydronephrosis (or other signs of obstruction); however, some patients with acute obstruction have little or no dilation.[77, 78, 79, 80, 81] In particular, US is helpful in evaluating those with renal insufficiency or contraindications for the use of contrast media; however, US is often skipped in favor of nonenhanced CT.[82]
Page 17 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
In addition, US is good for characterizing lucent filling defects that are visualized as stones on IVU. However, US does not provide direct physiologic information regarding the degree of obstruction. Doppler imaging may demonstrate a high resistive index in acute obstruction, but this may not occur immediately or after forniceal rupture. Absence of the ureteral jet, as visualized with color Doppler on the symptomatic side, is presumptive evidence for a high-grade obstruction in a well-hydrated patient.[83, 84, 85, 86, 87]
US is very insensitive for stones, especially stones smaller than 2 mm, stones at the UPJ, or stones in the mid ureter. Fowler et al suggest that US has a sensitivity as low as 24%, compared with nonenhanced CT. Furthermore, estimations of stone size may not be accurate. Compared with nonenhanced CT, US is more dependent on the operator's ability and more time consuming.
False positives/negatives
US is fairly specific when stones are seen, with a specificity as high as 90%. With US, matrix or indinavir stones may have soft tissue echogenicity without shadowing. False-positive findings may result from renal vascular calcifications. False-positive diagnoses of hydronephrosis also result from dilated vascular structures in the renal hilum. Doppler imaging is helpful in distinguishing dilated vascular structures from hydronephrosis.
Nuclear Imaging
Nuclear medicine studies may demonstrate the retention of activity in the cortex or collecting system when the obstruction is ongoing. Nuclear medicine tests are useful in determining differential renal function for treatment planning and for assessing how much renal function might return after the obstruction is relieved.[88, 69] For example, a kidney with very little function might be removed if very little function persists after a trial of drainage. Occasionally, confirming the obstruction with nuclear medicine studies is useful if the administration of iodinated contrast material is contraindicated. Renal function evaluation is not reliable in the presence of ongoing obstruction. Conversely, imaging findings may be normal with low-grade obstruction.
Page 18 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author J Kevin Smith, MD, PhD Professor of Abdominal Imaging, Vice Chair for Veterans Affairs, Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine; Chief of Service, Department of Radiology, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center
J Kevin Smith, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Radiological Society of North America, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Coauthor(s) Mark E Lockhart, MD, MPH Professor of Radiology, Associate Director of Radiology Medical Student Education, Chief of Abdominal Imaging, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine Mark E Lockhart, MD, MPH is a member of the following medical societies: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists,Radiological Society of North America, Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound, and Society of Uroradiology Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Nicole W Berland Outreach Support for Hurricane Relief, Collat Jewish Family Service Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Philip Kenney, MD Professor of Radiology and Chairman, Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Page 19 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Philip Kenney, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists,Radiological Society of North America, and Society of Uroradiology Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Specialty Editor Board Steven Perlmutter, MD, FACR Associate Professor of Clinical Radiology, The School of Medicine at Stony Brook University; Medical Director of Radiology, Peconic Bay Medical Center Steven Perlmutter, MD, FACR is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American Medical Association, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of Program Directors in Radiology, Association of University Radiologists, Medical Society of the State of New York, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Breast Imaging, Society of Nuclear Medicine, and Society of Uroradiology Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Robert M Krasny, MD Resolution Imaging Medical Corporation Robert M Krasny, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Roentgen Ray Societyand Radiological Society of North America Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Chief Editor Eugene C Lin, MD Attending Radiologist, Teaching Coordinator for Cardiac Imaging, Radiology Residency Program, Virginia Mason Medical
Page 20 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Center; Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine Eugene C Lin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Nuclear Medicine, American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, and Society of Nuclear Medicine Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
References
1. Dhar M, Denstedt JD. Imaging in diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of stone patients. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. Jan 2009;16(1):3947. [Medline]. 2. Cronan JJ. Contemporary concepts in imaging urinary tract obstruction. Radiol Clin North Am. May 1991;29(3):527-42. [Medline]. 3. Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Genitourinary imaging: the past 40 years. Radiology. May 2000;215(2):313-24.[Medline]. 4. Jones CD. Imaging renal and ureteral stones. West J Med. Nov 1998;169(5):289-90. [Medline]. 5. Mindell HJ, Cochran ST. Current perspectives in the diagnosis and treatment of urinary stone disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Dec 1994;163(6):1314-5. [Medline]. 6. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, et al. Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(2):212-7. [Medline]. 7. Segal AJ, Banner MP. Radiologic characteristics of urolithiasis. In: Pollack HM, ed. Clinical Urography: An Atlas and Textbook of Urological Imaging. WB Saunders Co;1990:1758-60. 8. Alshamakhi AK, Barclay LC, Halkett G, Kukade G, Mundhada D, Uppoor RR, et al. CT evaluation of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis. Radiol Technol. Nov-Dec 2009;81(2):122-31. [Medline]. 9. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol. Mar 1998;159(3):735-40. [Medline].
Page 21 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
10. Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Longmaid HE 3rd, et al. Impact of abdominal CT on the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol. May 2000;174(5):1391-6. [Medline]. 11. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. Mar 1995;194(3):789-94. [Medline]. 12. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 1996;166(1):97-101. [Medline]. 13. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, et al. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol. Sep 1998;160(3 Pt 1):679-84. [Medline]. 14. Chen MY, Scharling ES, Zagoria RJ, et al. CT diagnosis of acute flank pain from urolithiasis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. Feb 2000;21(1):2-19. [Medline]. 15. Fielding JR, Fox LA, Heller H, et al. Spiral CT in the evaluation of flank pain: overall accuracy and feature analysis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. Jul-Aug 1997;21(4):635-8. [Medline]. 16. Fielding JR, Silverman SG, Samuel S, et al. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: a replacement for excretory urography in planning treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Oct 1998;171(4):10513. [Medline]. 17. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, et al. Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol. Jun 1997;157(6):2071-3. [Medline]. 18. Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR, et al. Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology. Dec 1998;52(6):982-7.[Medline]. 19. Smith RC, Levine J, Dalrymple NC, et al. Acute flank pain: a modern approach to diagnosis and management. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. Apr 1999;20(2):108-35. [Medline].
Page 22 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
20. Ross AE, Handa S, Lingeman JE, Matlaga BR. Kidney stones during pregnancy: an investigation into stone composition. Urol Res. May 2008;36(2):99-102. [Medline]. 21. Srirangam SJ, Hickerton B, Van Cleynenbreugel B. Management of urinary calculi in pregnancy: a review.J Endourol. May 2008;22(5):867-75. [Medline]. 22. Zagoria RJ, Khatod EG, Chen MY. Abdominal radiography after CT reveals urinary calculi: a method to predict usefulness of abdominal radiography on the basis of size and CT attenuation of calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol. May 2001;176(5):1117-22. [Medline]. 23. Older RA, Jenkins AD. Stone disease. Urol Clin North Am. May 2000;27(2):215-29, vii. [Medline]. 24. Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med. Aug 1991;151(8):1589-92. [Medline]. 25. Olcott EW, Sommer FG, Napel S. Accuracy of detection and measurement of renal calculi: in vitro comparison of threedimensional spiral CT, radiography, and nephrotomography. Radiology. Jul 1997;204(1):19-25. [Medline]. 26. Ramchandani P. Radiological evaluation of renal calculous disease. In: Pollack HM, McClennon BL, Dyer R, Kenney PJ, eds. Clinical Urography. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co;2000:2147-200. 27. Roth CS, Bowyer BA, Berquist TH. Utility of the plain abdominal radiograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi.Ann Emerg Med. Apr 1985;14(4):311-5. [Medline]. 28. Smith SL, Somers JM, Broderick N, Halliday K. The role of the plain radiograph and renal tract ultrasound in the management of children with renal tract calculi. Clin Radiol. Sep 2000;55(9):70810. [Medline]. 29. Van Arsdalen KN, Banner MP, Pollack HM. Radiographic imaging and urologic decision making in the management of renal and ureteral calculi. Urol Clin N Am. 1990;17:171-90.
Page 23 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
30. Zangerle KF, Iserson KV, Bjelland JC, Criss E. Usefulness of abdominal flat plate radiographs in patients with suspected ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med. Apr 1985;14(4):316-9. [Medline]. 31. Dyer RB, Munitz HA, Bechtold R, Choplin RH. The abnormal nephrogram. Radiographics. Nov 1986;6(6):1039-63. [Medline]. 32. Assi Z, Platt JF, Francis IR, et al. Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Aug 2000;175(2):333-7. [Medline]. 33. Hillman BJ, Drach GW, Tracey P, Gaines JA. Computed tomographic analysis of renal calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Mar 1984;142(3):549-52. [Medline]. 34. Newhouse JH, Prien EL, Amis ES Jr, et al. Computed tomographic analysis of urinary calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Mar 1984;142(3):545-8. [Medline]. 35. Niall O, Russell J, MacGregor R, et al. A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol. Feb 1999;161(2):5347. [Medline]. 36. Rappaport DC. Helical CT applications in the thorax and abdomen. Postgrad Med. Nov 1998;104(5):105-8, 113-4. [Medline]. 37. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, et al. Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Aug 2000;175(2):32932. [Medline]. 38. Smith RC, Levine J, Rosenfeld AT. Helical CT of urinary tract stones. Epidemiology, origin, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Radiol Clin North Am. Sep 1999;37(5):911-52, v. [Medline]. 39. Smith RC, Varanelli M. Diagnosis and management of acute ureterolithiasis: CT is truth. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jul 2000;175(1):36. [Medline].
Page 24 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
40. Shimizu T, Hori H. The prevalence of nephrolithiasis in patients with primary gout: a cross-sectional study using helical computed tomography. J Rheumatol. Sep 2009;36(9):1958-62. [Medline]. 41. Chen MY, Zagoria RJ. Can noncontrast helical computed tomography replace intravenous urography for evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic?. J Emerg Med. Mar-Apr 1999;17(2):299-303. [Medline]. 42. Schwartz BF, Schenkman N, Armenakas NA, Stoller ML. Imaging characteristics of indinavir calculi. J Urol. Apr 1999;161(4):1085-7. [Medline]. 43. Dean TE, Harrison NW, Bishop NL. CT scanning in the diagnosis and management of radiolucent urinary calculi. Br J Urol. Nov 1988;62(5):405-8. [Medline]. 44. Abramson S, Walders N, Applegate KE, et al. Impact in the emergency department of unenhanced CT on diagnostic confidence and therapeutic efficacy in patients with suspected renal colic: a prospective survey. 2000 ARRS President's Award. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Dec 2000;175(6):1689-95. [Medline]. 45. Boridy IC, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Acute ureterolithiasis: nonenhanced helical CT findings of perinephric edema for prediction of degree of ureteral obstruction. Radiology. Dec 1999;213(3):663-7. [Medline]. 46. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, et al. Noncontrast helical CT for ureteral stones. World J Urol. 1998;16(1):18-21. [Medline]. 47. Freed KS, Paulson EK, Frederick MG, et al. Interobserver variability in the interpretation of unenhanced helical CT for the diagnosis of ureteral stone disease. J Comput Assist Tomogr. SepOct 1998;22(5):732-7.[Medline]. 48. Katz DS, Lane MJ, Sommer FG. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: incidence of associated urinary tract findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jun 1996;166(6):1319-22. [Medline]. 49. Katz DS, Scheer M, Lumerman JH, et al. Alternative or additional diagnoses on unenhanced helical computed tomography
Page 25 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
for suspected renal colic: experience with 1000 consecutive examinations. Urology. Jul 2000;56(1):53-7. [Medline]. 50. Nakada SY, Hoff DG, Attai S, et al. Determination of stone composition by noncontrast spiral computed tomography in the clinical setting. Urology. Jun 2000;55(6):816-9. [Medline]. 51. Preminger GM, Vieweg J, Leder RA, Nelson RC. Urolithiasis: detection and management with unenhanced spiral CT--a urologic perspective. Radiology. May 1998;207(2):308-9. [Medline]. 52. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol. Mar 1998;159(3):673-5. [Medline]. 53. Hopper KD, Keeton NC, Kasales CJ, et al. Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal CT. Clin Imaging. Jan-Feb 1998;22(1):54-9. [Medline]. 54. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, et al. Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology. Apr 2000;215(1):51-4. [Medline]. 55. Morin MJ. Helical CT and renal calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Feb 2000;174(2):568-9. [Medline]. 56. Boulay I, Holtz P, Foley WD, et al. Ureteral calculi: diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jun 1999;172(6):1485-90. [Medline]. 57. Chen MY, Zagoria RJ, Saunders HS, Dyer RB. Trends in the use of unenhanced helical CT for acute urinary colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Dec 1999;173(6):1447-50. [Medline]. 58. Doyle A, Hawkins S, Ashley L. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones in planning treatment: patient selection criteria. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jul 1999;173(1):240. [Medline]. 59. Karmazyn B, Frush DP, Applegate KE, Maxfield C, Cohen MD, Jones RP. CT with a computer-simulated dose reduction technique for detection of pediatric nephroureterolithiasis: comparison of standard and reduced radiation doses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 2009;192(1):143-9. [Medline].
Page 26 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
60. Troughton A. Unenhanced helical CT for renal colic--is the radiation dose justifiable?. Clin Radiol. May 2000;55(5):40910. [Medline]. 61. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, et al. Ureterolithiasis: value of the tail sign in differentiating phleboliths from ureteral calculi at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology. Jun 1999;211(3):61921. [Medline]. 62. Traubici J, Neitlich JD, Smith RC. Distinguishing pelvic phleboliths from distal ureteral stones on routine unenhanced helical CT: is there a radiolucent center?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 1999;172(1):13-7.[Medline]. 63. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, Jarrett TW. Plain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol. Aug 2000;164(2):308-10. [Medline]. 64. Levine J, Neitlich J, Smith RC. The value of prone scanning to distinguish ureterovesical junction stones from ureteral stones that have passed into the bladder: leave no stone unturned. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Apr 1999;172(4):977-81. [Medline]. 65. Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, et al. Soft-tissue "rim" sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. Mar 1997;202(3):709-11. [Medline]. 66. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Boridy IC, et al. Unenhanced helical CT of ureterolithiasis: value of the tissue rim sign. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Apr 1997;168(4):997-1000. [Medline]. 67. Chu G, Rosenfield AT, Anderson K, et al. Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Aug 1999;173(2):417-23. [Medline]. 68. Dalrymple NC, Casford B, Raiken DP, et al. Pearls and pitfalls in the diagnosis of ureterolithiasis with unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics. Mar-Apr 2000;20(2):439-47; quiz 527-8, 532. [Medline]. 69. Lorberboym M, Kapustin Z, Elias S, et al. The role of renal scintigraphy and unenhanced helical computerized tomography in
Page 27 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
patients with ureterolithiasis. Eur J Nucl Med. Apr 2000;27(4):4416.[Medline]. 70. Swartz HM, Reichling BA. Hazards of radiation exposure for pregnant women. JAMA. May 5 1978;239(18):1907-8. [Medline]. 71. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, et al. Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. Jul 1997;204(1):27-31. [Medline]. 72. Rafi M, Shetty A, Gunja N. Accuracy of computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder interpretation by emergency physicians. Emerg Med Australas. Oct 2013;25(5):422426. [Medline]. 73. Hussain S, O'Malley M, Jara H, et al. MR urography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. Feb 1997;5(1):95-106. [Medline]. 74. Regan F, Bohlman ME, Khazan R, et al. MR urography using HASTE imaging in the assessment of ureteric obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Nov 1996;167(5):1115-20. [Medline]. 75. Roy C, Saussine C, Jahn C, et al. Evaluation of RARE-MR urography in the assessment of ureterohydronephrosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. Jul-Aug 1994;18(4):601-8. [Medline]. 76. Sudah M, Vanninen R, Partanen K, et al. MR urography in evaluation of acute flank pain: T2-weighted sequences and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional FLASH compared with urography. Fast low-angle shot. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 2001;176(1):105-12. [Medline]. 77. Bansal AD, Hui J, Goldfarb DS. Asymptomatic nephrolithiasis detected by ultrasound. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. Mar 2009;4(3):6804. [Medline]. [Full Text]. 78. Juul N, Brons J, Torp-Pedersen S, Fredfeldt KE. Ultrasound versus intravenous urography in the initial evaluation of patients with suspected obstructing urinary calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1991;137:45-7. [Medline]. 79. Sinclair D, Wilson S, Toi A, Greenspan L. The evaluation of suspected renal colic: ultrasound scan versus excretory urography. Ann Emerg Med. May 1989;18(5):556-9. [Medline].
Page 28 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
80. Vrtiska TJ, Hattery RR, King BF, et al. Role of ultrasound in medical management of patients with renal stone disease. Urol Radiol. 1992;14(3):131-8. [Medline]. 81. Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology. Dec 2000;217(3):7927. [Medline]. 82. Fowler KA, Locken JA, Duchesne JH. US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology. Jan 2002;222(1):109-13. [Medline]. 83. Shabana W, Bude RO, Rubin JM. Comparison between color Doppler twinkling artifact and acoustic shadowing for renal calculus detection: an in vitro study. Ultrasound Med Biol. Feb 2009;35(2):33950.[Medline]. 84. Burge HJ, Middleton WD, McClennan BL, Hildebolt CF. Ureteral jets in healthy subjects and in patients with unilateral ureteral calculi: comparison with color Doppler US. Radiology. Aug 1991;180(2):437-42.[Medline]. 85. Deyoe LA, Cronan JJ, Breslaw BH, Ridlen MS. New techniques of ultrasound and color Doppler in the prospective evaluation of acute renal obstruction. Do they replace the intravenous urogram?. Abdom Imaging. Jan-Feb 1995;20(1):58-63. [Medline]. 86. Haddad MC, Abomelha MS, Riley PJ. Diagnosis of acute ureteral calculous obstruction in pregnant women using colour and pulsed Doppler sonography. Clin Radiol. Dec 1995;50(12):8646. [Medline]. 87. Jandaghi AB, Falahatkar S, Alizadeh A, Kanafi AR, Pourghorban R, Shekarchi B, et al. Assessment of ureterovesical jet dynamics in obstructed ureter by urinary stone with color Doppler and duplex Doppler examinations. Urolithiasis. Apr 2013;41(2):15963. [Medline]. 88. Kelleher JP, Plail RO, Dave SM, et al. Sequential renography in acute urinary tract obstruction due to stone disease. Br J Urol. Feb 1991;67(2):125-8. [Medline].
Page 29 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30
Page 30 of 30
10/02/2014 15:30

Urinary Calculi Imaging in ENGLISH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urinary Calculi Imaging in ENGLISH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urinary Calculi Imaging