Cargando…

Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate whether prone CT scanning is superior to supine scanning for correct localization of distal urinary calculi in patients with acute flank pain. METHODS: Consecutively performed unenhanced CT scans in patients with acute flank pain were retrospectively analyzed in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meissnitzer, Matthias, Meissnitzer, Thomas, Hruby, Stephan, Hecht, Stefan, Gutzeit, Andreas, Holzer-Frühwald, Laura, Hergan, Klaus, Forstner, Rosemarie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27670877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0918-1
_version_ 1782511305175859200
author Meissnitzer, Matthias
Meissnitzer, Thomas
Hruby, Stephan
Hecht, Stefan
Gutzeit, Andreas
Holzer-Frühwald, Laura
Hergan, Klaus
Forstner, Rosemarie
author_facet Meissnitzer, Matthias
Meissnitzer, Thomas
Hruby, Stephan
Hecht, Stefan
Gutzeit, Andreas
Holzer-Frühwald, Laura
Hergan, Klaus
Forstner, Rosemarie
author_sort Meissnitzer, Matthias
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate whether prone CT scanning is superior to supine scanning for correct localization of distal urinary calculi in patients with acute flank pain. METHODS: Consecutively performed unenhanced CT scans in patients with acute flank pain were retrospectively analyzed in 150 patients in supine and another 150 patients in prone position. Images were reviewed by two radiologists on consensus. Findings in both groups were compared using two-sided Fisher Exact tests and Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. RESULTS: Urinary calculi were found in 67% of patients in each group. In the supine scanning group, there were 16 cases, in which the location of the stone was equivocal being either located intramurally at the ureterovesical junction (UVJ) or having already passed into the bladder. In contrast, in the prone imaging group all distal stones could be allocated accurately, either to the intramural UVJ or the urinary bladder (37 intramural UVJ stones and six bladder stones in prone scanning group vs. 21 intramural UVJ stones and one bladder stone when scanned supine). CONCLUSION: Prone scanning is superior to supine CT scanning for acute flank pain to accurately distinguish intramural UVJ stones from stones that have already passed into the bladder, a distinction which influences patient management.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5331073
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53310732017-03-13 Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis Meissnitzer, Matthias Meissnitzer, Thomas Hruby, Stephan Hecht, Stefan Gutzeit, Andreas Holzer-Frühwald, Laura Hergan, Klaus Forstner, Rosemarie Abdom Radiol (NY) Article PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate whether prone CT scanning is superior to supine scanning for correct localization of distal urinary calculi in patients with acute flank pain. METHODS: Consecutively performed unenhanced CT scans in patients with acute flank pain were retrospectively analyzed in 150 patients in supine and another 150 patients in prone position. Images were reviewed by two radiologists on consensus. Findings in both groups were compared using two-sided Fisher Exact tests and Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. RESULTS: Urinary calculi were found in 67% of patients in each group. In the supine scanning group, there were 16 cases, in which the location of the stone was equivocal being either located intramurally at the ureterovesical junction (UVJ) or having already passed into the bladder. In contrast, in the prone imaging group all distal stones could be allocated accurately, either to the intramural UVJ or the urinary bladder (37 intramural UVJ stones and six bladder stones in prone scanning group vs. 21 intramural UVJ stones and one bladder stone when scanned supine). CONCLUSION: Prone scanning is superior to supine CT scanning for acute flank pain to accurately distinguish intramural UVJ stones from stones that have already passed into the bladder, a distinction which influences patient management. Springer US 2016-09-26 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5331073/ /pubmed/27670877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0918-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Meissnitzer, Matthias
Meissnitzer, Thomas
Hruby, Stephan
Hecht, Stefan
Gutzeit, Andreas
Holzer-Frühwald, Laura
Hergan, Klaus
Forstner, Rosemarie
Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
title Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
title_full Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
title_fullStr Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
title_short Comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced CT imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
title_sort comparison of prone vs. supine unenhanced ct imaging in patients with clinically suspected ureterolithiasis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27670877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0918-1
work_keys_str_mv AT meissnitzermatthias comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT meissnitzerthomas comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT hrubystephan comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT hechtstefan comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT gutzeitandreas comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT holzerfruhwaldlaura comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT herganklaus comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis
AT forstnerrosemarie comparisonofpronevssupineunenhancedctimaginginpatientswithclinicallysuspectedureterolithiasis