岩石固体测量:肾结石体积评估三种方法的比较。

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-18 DOI:10.1177/08927790251359973
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介与目的:肾结石体积是选择治疗方案和预测手术结果的重要变量。然而,目前尚未确定标准化和最佳的石材体积评估方法。本研究的目的是评估和比较三种体积评估方法:不等边椭球公式,三维(3D)切片机和企业成像。方法:基于实际患者的计算机断层扫描(CT),建立了一个包括躯干和肾脏的台式模型。植入五组不同大小的肾结石,并使用64层CT扫描仪扫描。10位盲法审稿人使用不等边椭球公式、3D切片机和Enterprise Imaging测量每组结石的肾结石体积。使用这些测量,比较了这些方法的信度、准确性、速度、效度和便利性。除了使用Tukey的事后分析和方差分析外,还通过Friedman检验确定了显著性。结果:三种方法均具有较高的组间信度(组内相关系数>0.98)。Enterprise Imaging的平均相对误差(4.9%)显著低于3D切片机(10.2%;P < 0.001)和不等边椭球公式(43.8%;P < 0.001)。当由专家执行时,Enterprise Imaging(17.8秒)比不等边椭球公式(25.2秒)快;p = 0.006),两者都比3D切片机快(196.6秒;P < 0.001)。各方法内部一致有效(α > 0.9;R2 > 0.98)。Enterprise Imaging被确定为比不等边椭球公式和三维切片机更方便(p < 0.001)。结论:在本研究中,企业成像是一种更准确、更有效的测量结石体积的工具。临床医生可以利用Enterprise Imaging有效地确定结石体积,更好地选择治疗方法并预测手术和术后结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信