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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alahmadi, Ahmed Eid, Aljuhani, Fawaz Mobasher, Alshoabi, Sultan Abdulwadoud, Aloufi, Khalid M., Alsharif, Walaa M, Alamri, Abdulrahman M.
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