Cargando…
The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi
OBJECTIVE: Due to a lack of studies regarding the need for computed tomography (CT) in measuring the size of each urinary calculus before surgery, this study was conducted to elucidate the difference between ultrasonography (US) and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones. METHODS: A retrospectiv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33209823 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_742_20 |
_version_ | 1783607639623598080 |
---|---|
author | Alahmadi, Ahmed Eid Aljuhani, Fawaz Mobasher Alshoabi, Sultan Abdulwadoud Aloufi, Khalid M. Alsharif, Walaa M Alamri, Abdulrahman M. |
author_facet | Alahmadi, Ahmed Eid Aljuhani, Fawaz Mobasher Alshoabi, Sultan Abdulwadoud Aloufi, Khalid M. Alsharif, Walaa M Alamri, Abdulrahman M. |
author_sort | Alahmadi, Ahmed Eid |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Due to a lack of studies regarding the need for computed tomography (CT) in measuring the size of each urinary calculus before surgery, this study was conducted to elucidate the difference between ultrasonography (US) and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones. METHODS: A retrospective review of 100 stones from 83 patients. Each urinary stone was measured using both US and CT; both measurements were then compared. RESULTS: Of 83 patients, the mean age was 39.29 ± 23.76 years; 47 (56.62%) were male and 36 (43.37%) were female. Most of the urinary stones were <10 mm (50.0%) followed by 11–20 mm (42.0%), (P < 0.001). A cross-tabulation test revealed strong compatibility between US and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones (73.7% in stones <10 mm, 66.7% in stones 11–20 mm and 50% in stones >21 mm), (P < 0.001). Spearman's rho correlation test revealed strong compatibility between stone diameters measured by US and CT (r = 0.755), (P = 0 < 0.001). T-test for equality of means revealed no significant difference in the measured size using US and CT (mean = 11.80 ± 5.83 vs. 11.65 ± 6.59, respectively), mean difference = 0.15, and P = 0.865, 95% confidence interval: -1.584–1.884. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in measuring the size of urinary stones using US and CT. However, US may slightly overestimate small stones in some cases. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7652115 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76521152020-11-17 The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi Alahmadi, Ahmed Eid Aljuhani, Fawaz Mobasher Alshoabi, Sultan Abdulwadoud Aloufi, Khalid M. Alsharif, Walaa M Alamri, Abdulrahman M. J Family Med Prim Care Original Article OBJECTIVE: Due to a lack of studies regarding the need for computed tomography (CT) in measuring the size of each urinary calculus before surgery, this study was conducted to elucidate the difference between ultrasonography (US) and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones. METHODS: A retrospective review of 100 stones from 83 patients. Each urinary stone was measured using both US and CT; both measurements were then compared. RESULTS: Of 83 patients, the mean age was 39.29 ± 23.76 years; 47 (56.62%) were male and 36 (43.37%) were female. Most of the urinary stones were <10 mm (50.0%) followed by 11–20 mm (42.0%), (P < 0.001). A cross-tabulation test revealed strong compatibility between US and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones (73.7% in stones <10 mm, 66.7% in stones 11–20 mm and 50% in stones >21 mm), (P < 0.001). Spearman's rho correlation test revealed strong compatibility between stone diameters measured by US and CT (r = 0.755), (P = 0 < 0.001). T-test for equality of means revealed no significant difference in the measured size using US and CT (mean = 11.80 ± 5.83 vs. 11.65 ± 6.59, respectively), mean difference = 0.15, and P = 0.865, 95% confidence interval: -1.584–1.884. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in measuring the size of urinary stones using US and CT. However, US may slightly overestimate small stones in some cases. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7652115/ /pubmed/33209823 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_742_20 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Alahmadi, Ahmed Eid Aljuhani, Fawaz Mobasher Alshoabi, Sultan Abdulwadoud Aloufi, Khalid M. Alsharif, Walaa M Alamri, Abdulrahman M. The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
title | The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
title_full | The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
title_fullStr | The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
title_full_unstemmed | The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
title_short | The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
title_sort | gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652115/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33209823 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_742_20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT alahmadiahmedeid thegapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT aljuhanifawazmobasher thegapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alshoabisultanabdulwadoud thegapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT aloufikhalidm thegapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alsharifwalaam thegapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alamriabdulrahmanm thegapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alahmadiahmedeid gapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT aljuhanifawazmobasher gapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alshoabisultanabdulwadoud gapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT aloufikhalidm gapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alsharifwalaam gapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi AT alamriabdulrahmanm gapbetweenultrasonographyandcomputedtomographyinmeasuringthesizeofurinarycalculi |