Limitations of ultrasound compared with computed tomography for kidney stone surveillance.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Ryan Sun, Elijah Sommer, Calyani Ganesan, Alan C Pao, Joseph Liao, John Leppert, Helena Chang, Simon Conti, Timothy Chang
{"title":"Limitations of ultrasound compared with computed tomography for kidney stone surveillance.","authors":"Ryan Sun, Elijah Sommer, Calyani Ganesan, Alan C Pao, Joseph Liao, John Leppert, Helena Chang, Simon Conti, Timothy Chang","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.9043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Renal ultrasound (US) offers less radiation exposure than computed tomography (CT) for kidney stone surveillance but has lower sensitivity and specificity for nephrolithiasis diagnosis. Additionally, US may overestimate stone size, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. Evidence on US performance for kidney stone surveillance is variable, making its clinical utility unclear. We aimed to assess US accuracy against CT and identify factors influencing US performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective review of patients with known nephrolithiasis seen in urology clinic at Stanford who underwent both renal US and CT within 90 days for surveillance from January to December 2022. Patients with spontaneous stone passage or interventions were excluded. Stone characteristics were recorded, and statistical analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of US and CT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 107 patients and 128 stones were included, with a mean time difference of 25.7 days between US and CT. US sensitivity was 77%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75% for stone detection. The PPV was only 59% for stones >4 mm by CT. Mean stone size was 8.7 mm on US vs. 5.5 mm on CT (p=0.02), with more pronounced overestimation in smaller stones and higher body mass index (BMI) (p<0.05). No significant differences in US performance were found by stone location, laterality, or time between scans. Differences in stone detection (p=0.01) and size (p=0.03) were associated with the individual performing the ultrasound.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>US performance is limited compared to CT and is influenced by stone size, BMI, and sonographer. Overestimation by US may lead to unnecessary interventions in up to 40% of patients with stones >4 mm.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Renal ultrasound (US) offers less radiation exposure than computed tomography (CT) for kidney stone surveillance but has lower sensitivity and specificity for nephrolithiasis diagnosis. Additionally, US may overestimate stone size, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. Evidence on US performance for kidney stone surveillance is variable, making its clinical utility unclear. We aimed to assess US accuracy against CT and identify factors influencing US performance.

Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with known nephrolithiasis seen in urology clinic at Stanford who underwent both renal US and CT within 90 days for surveillance from January to December 2022. Patients with spontaneous stone passage or interventions were excluded. Stone characteristics were recorded, and statistical analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of US and CT.

Results: A total of 107 patients and 128 stones were included, with a mean time difference of 25.7 days between US and CT. US sensitivity was 77%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75% for stone detection. The PPV was only 59% for stones >4 mm by CT. Mean stone size was 8.7 mm on US vs. 5.5 mm on CT (p=0.02), with more pronounced overestimation in smaller stones and higher body mass index (BMI) (p<0.05). No significant differences in US performance were found by stone location, laterality, or time between scans. Differences in stone detection (p=0.01) and size (p=0.03) were associated with the individual performing the ultrasound.

Conclusions: US performance is limited compared to CT and is influenced by stone size, BMI, and sonographer. Overestimation by US may lead to unnecessary interventions in up to 40% of patients with stones >4 mm.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信