Grant Sajdak, D Daniel Baldwin, Ala'a Farkouh, Ruben Crew, Katya Hanessian, Kai Wen Cheng, Uy Lae Kim, Jammie-Lyn Quines, Akin S Amasyali, Sikai Song, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin
{"title":"岩石固体测量:肾结石体积评估三种方法的比较。","authors":"Grant Sajdak, D Daniel Baldwin, Ala'a Farkouh, Ruben Crew, Katya Hanessian, Kai Wen Cheng, Uy Lae Kim, Jammie-Lyn Quines, Akin S Amasyali, Sikai Song, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin","doi":"10.1177/08927790251359973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction and Objective:</i></b> Renal stone volume is an important variable for treatment selection and predicting surgical outcomes. However, the standardized and optimal method for stone volume assessment has not been identified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare three methods of volume assessment: the scalene ellipsoid formula, three-dimensional (3D) slicer, and Enterprise Imaging. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A bench top model was created including a torso and kidney based on an actual patient computed tomography (CT). Five kidney stone sets of varying sizes were implanted and scanned using a 64 slice CT scanner. Ten blinded reviewers used the scalene ellipsoid formula, 3D slicer, and Enterprise Imaging to measure kidney stone volume for each stone set. Using these measurements, the methods were compared for inter-rater reliability, accuracy, speed, validity, and convenience. Significance was determined by the Friedman test in addition to using Tukey's <i>post hoc</i> and analysis of variance where appropriate. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All three techniques had high inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.98). The mean relative error for Enterprise Imaging (4.9%) was significantly lower than 3D slicer (10.2%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and the scalene ellipsoid formula (43.8%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). When performed by an expert, Enterprise Imaging (17.8 seconds) was faster than the scalene ellipsoid formula (25.2 seconds; <i>p</i> = 0.006) and both were faster than 3D slicer (196.6 seconds; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Each method was determined to be internally consistent and valid (α > 0.9; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> > 0.98, respectively). Enterprise Imaging was determined to be significantly more convenient (<i>p</i> < 0.001) than both the scalene ellipsoid formula and 3D slicer. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In this study, Enterprise Imaging was a more accurate and efficient tool to measure stone volume. Clinicians can utilize Enterprise Imaging to efficiently determine stone volume and to better select treatment and predict operative and postoperative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"856-861"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rock Solid Measurements: A Comparison of Three Methods of Kidney Stone Volume Assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Grant Sajdak, D Daniel Baldwin, Ala'a Farkouh, Ruben Crew, Katya Hanessian, Kai Wen Cheng, Uy Lae Kim, Jammie-Lyn Quines, Akin S Amasyali, Sikai Song, Zhamshid Okhunov, D Duane Baldwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08927790251359973\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Introduction and Objective:</i></b> Renal stone volume is an important variable for treatment selection and predicting surgical outcomes. However, the standardized and optimal method for stone volume assessment has not been identified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare three methods of volume assessment: the scalene ellipsoid formula, three-dimensional (3D) slicer, and Enterprise Imaging. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A bench top model was created including a torso and kidney based on an actual patient computed tomography (CT). Five kidney stone sets of varying sizes were implanted and scanned using a 64 slice CT scanner. Ten blinded reviewers used the scalene ellipsoid formula, 3D slicer, and Enterprise Imaging to measure kidney stone volume for each stone set. Using these measurements, the methods were compared for inter-rater reliability, accuracy, speed, validity, and convenience. Significance was determined by the Friedman test in addition to using Tukey's <i>post hoc</i> and analysis of variance where appropriate. <b><i>Results:</i></b> All three techniques had high inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.98). The mean relative error for Enterprise Imaging (4.9%) was significantly lower than 3D slicer (10.2%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and the scalene ellipsoid formula (43.8%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). When performed by an expert, Enterprise Imaging (17.8 seconds) was faster than the scalene ellipsoid formula (25.2 seconds; <i>p</i> = 0.006) and both were faster than 3D slicer (196.6 seconds; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Each method was determined to be internally consistent and valid (α > 0.9; <i>R</i><sup>2</sup> > 0.98, respectively). Enterprise Imaging was determined to be significantly more convenient (<i>p</i> < 0.001) than both the scalene ellipsoid formula and 3D slicer. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In this study, Enterprise Imaging was a more accurate and efficient tool to measure stone volume. Clinicians can utilize Enterprise Imaging to efficiently determine stone volume and to better select treatment and predict operative and postoperative outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of endourology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"856-861\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"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/10.1177/08927790251359973\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08927790251359973","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Rock Solid Measurements: A Comparison of Three Methods of Kidney Stone Volume Assessment.
Introduction and Objective: Renal stone volume is an important variable for treatment selection and predicting surgical outcomes. However, the standardized and optimal method for stone volume assessment has not been identified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare three methods of volume assessment: the scalene ellipsoid formula, three-dimensional (3D) slicer, and Enterprise Imaging. Methods: A bench top model was created including a torso and kidney based on an actual patient computed tomography (CT). Five kidney stone sets of varying sizes were implanted and scanned using a 64 slice CT scanner. Ten blinded reviewers used the scalene ellipsoid formula, 3D slicer, and Enterprise Imaging to measure kidney stone volume for each stone set. Using these measurements, the methods were compared for inter-rater reliability, accuracy, speed, validity, and convenience. Significance was determined by the Friedman test in addition to using Tukey's post hoc and analysis of variance where appropriate. Results: All three techniques had high inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.98). The mean relative error for Enterprise Imaging (4.9%) was significantly lower than 3D slicer (10.2%; p < 0.001) and the scalene ellipsoid formula (43.8%; p < 0.001). When performed by an expert, Enterprise Imaging (17.8 seconds) was faster than the scalene ellipsoid formula (25.2 seconds; p = 0.006) and both were faster than 3D slicer (196.6 seconds; p < 0.001). Each method was determined to be internally consistent and valid (α > 0.9; R2 > 0.98, respectively). Enterprise Imaging was determined to be significantly more convenient (p < 0.001) than both the scalene ellipsoid formula and 3D slicer. Conclusion: In this study, Enterprise Imaging was a more accurate and efficient tool to measure stone volume. Clinicians can utilize Enterprise Imaging to efficiently determine stone volume and to better select treatment and predict operative and postoperative outcomes.
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.