4.4 Article

Multidetector Computed Tomography: Role in Determination of Urinary Stones Composition and Disintegration With Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy-an in Vitro Study

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.021

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the ability of noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) to predict stone composition and fragility for treatment with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). METHODS A total of 103 stones from patients who had undergone different open surgical procedures were scanned with a 64 detector row helical computed tomography (CT) scanner using 1-mm collimation at 2 energy levels of 80 and 120 kV. The chemical compositions of the urinary stones were assessed on the basis of the differences in the densities measured in Hounsfield units (HU). Stones were then broken in an electromagnetic lithotripter until complete fragmentation, and number of shock waves was counted. RESULTS After exclusion of the groups with few calculi, 46 pure stones (18 uric acid, 22 calcium oxalate monohydrate, 6 struvite) and 48 mixed stones were included in the statistical analysis. For measurements at 120-kV, 80-kV, and dual-energy CT values, the overall difference between the densities of the stones was statistically significant; however there was a cross-over in densities between all stone groups. There were significant positive correlations at 120-kV, 80-kV, and dual-energy CT values between stone density and number of shock waves required for complete fragmentation. Stones with HU > 1000 required statistically significant higher number of shock waves. CONCLUSIONS Multidetector CT is not an accurate method for detection of human stone compositions; however a high stone CT attenuation value is s significant predictor of failure to fragment renal stones by SWL. UROLOGY 77: 286-290, 2011. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available