4.4 Article

Silent kidney stones in asymptomatic primary hyperparathyroidism-a comparison of multidetector computed tomography and ultrasound

Journal

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
Volume 402, Issue 2, Pages 289-293

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1520-2

Keywords

Asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism; Kidney stones; Primary hyperparathyroidism; PHPT

Categories

Funding

  1. Medical University of Vienna

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the high number of kidney stones in primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) and the low number of in fact asymptomatic patients. Methods Forty patients with PHPT (28 female, 12 male; median age 58 (range 33-80) years; interquartile range 17 years [51-68]) without known symptoms of kidney stones prospectively underwent multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and ultrasound (US) examinations of the urinary tract prior to parathyroid surgery. Images were evaluated for the presence and absence of stones, as well as for the number of stones and sizes in the long axis. The MDCT and US examinations were interpreted by two experienced radiologists who were blinded to all clinical and biochemical data. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results US revealed a total of 4 kidney stones in 4 (10 %) of 40 patients (median size 6.5 mm, interquartile range 11.5 mm). MDCT showed a total of 41 stones (median size was 3 mm, interquartile range 2.25 mm) in 15 (38 %) of 40 patients. The number of kidney stones detected with MDCT was significantly higher compared to US (p = 0.00124). Conclusions MDCT is a highly sensitive method for the detection of silent kidney stones in patients with PHPT. By widely applying this method, the number of asymptomatic courses of PHPT may be substantially reduced. MDCT should be used primarily to detect kidney stones in PHPT and to exclude asymptomatic PHPT.

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