Ryan Sun, Elijah Sommer, Calyani Ganesan, Alan C Pao, Joseph Liao, John Leppert, Helena Chang, Simon Conti, Timothy Chang
{"title":"超声与计算机断层扫描在肾结石监测中的局限性比较。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
肾超声(US)在肾结石监测方面比计算机断层扫描(CT)提供更少的辐射暴露,但在肾结石诊断方面的敏感性和特异性较低。此外,US可能高估结石大小,导致不必要的手术干预。关于美国肾结石监测表现的证据不一,使其临床应用不明确。我们的目的是评估超声对CT的准确性,并确定影响超声表现的因素。方法:我们对斯坦福大学泌尿外科诊所的已知肾结石患者进行回顾性研究,这些患者在2022年1月至12月的90天内接受了肾脏US和CT检查。排除自发性结石通过或干预的患者。记录结石特征,统计分析超声与CT的诊断准确率。结果:共纳入107例患者,128颗结石,US与CT平均时差25.7天。美国敏感性为77%,阳性预测值(PPV)为75%。CT显示,结石直径40 mm的PPV仅为59%。超声检查的平均结石大小为8.7 mm, CT检查为5.5 mm (p=0.02),对较小结石和较高体重指数(BMI)的高估更为明显(p结论:超声检查的表现与CT相比有限,受结石大小、BMI和超声检查的影响。美国的高估可能导致高达40%的结石患者进行不必要的干预。
Limitations of ultrasound compared with computed tomography for kidney stone surveillance.
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.
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.