{"title":"Comparison of Measurement Methods for Stone Volume Estimation: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.","authors":"Felipe Pauchard, Frederic Panthier, Catalina Espinoza, Nataly Vejar, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Olivier Traxer","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Urolithiasis guidelines still rely on the maximum stone diameter to propose treatment strategy, although this measure is known to have many pitfalls. Stone volume (SV) could represent a more accurate measurement, helping to plan the treatment or follow-up. Various methods to measure SV have been proposed. We aimed to compare different methods to estimate SV. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Fifteen stones (human and artificial) were assessed. Real SV was measured using the water displacement method. Volume estimation included three diameter-based formulas (Ackerman, 4/3 Pi r<sup>3</sup> and r<sup>3</sup>/2) and two 3D segmentation methods (Horos and Kidney Stone Calculator [KSC]). All measurements were done by a single operator. Spearman correlation test and comparative analyses were conducted between the real and the estimated SV. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Compared with real SVs, Ackerman and r<sup>3</sup>/2 formulas estimated volume accurately in 2/15 (13%) of stones each. No accurate measurement was reported using the sphere formula. KSC did estimate volume accurately in 4/15 (27%) stones compared with the reference SV; Horos did it in 7/15 (47%) stones. Both segmentation methods presented strong correlation coefficients (<i>r</i> = 0.9642 and 0.9659, <i>p</i> < 0.0001), while formula correlation was moderate (<i>r</i> = 0.7531, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Formulas and segmentation methods for SV estimation resulted in divergent outcomes. Segmentation methods (Horos and KSC) presented higher accuracies in SV estimation, compared with real SV. Formulas were the least accurate.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Urolithiasis guidelines still rely on the maximum stone diameter to propose treatment strategy, although this measure is known to have many pitfalls. Stone volume (SV) could represent a more accurate measurement, helping to plan the treatment or follow-up. Various methods to measure SV have been proposed. We aimed to compare different methods to estimate SV. Methods: Fifteen stones (human and artificial) were assessed. Real SV was measured using the water displacement method. Volume estimation included three diameter-based formulas (Ackerman, 4/3 Pi r3 and r3/2) and two 3D segmentation methods (Horos and Kidney Stone Calculator [KSC]). All measurements were done by a single operator. Spearman correlation test and comparative analyses were conducted between the real and the estimated SV. Results: Compared with real SVs, Ackerman and r3/2 formulas estimated volume accurately in 2/15 (13%) of stones each. No accurate measurement was reported using the sphere formula. KSC did estimate volume accurately in 4/15 (27%) stones compared with the reference SV; Horos did it in 7/15 (47%) stones. Both segmentation methods presented strong correlation coefficients (r = 0.9642 and 0.9659, p < 0.0001), while formula correlation was moderate (r = 0.7531, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Formulas and segmentation methods for SV estimation resulted in divergent outcomes. Segmentation methods (Horos and KSC) presented higher accuracies in SV estimation, compared with real SV. Formulas were the least accurate.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes.
The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation.
Journal of Endourology coverage includes:
The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions
Pioneering research articles
Controversial cases in endourology
Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos
Reviews and epochs in endourology
Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.