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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |