Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 12, pp 6953–6964 | Cite as

Increased urinary bladder volume improves the detectability of urinary stones at the ureterovesical junction in non-enhanced computed tomography (NECT)

  • Maxim AvanesovEmail author
  • Julja Togmat
  • Mehtap Solmaz
  • Michael Gerhard Kaul
  • Azien Laqmani
  • Helena Guerreiro
  • Sarah Keller
  • Lars Weisbach
  • Gerhard Adam
  • Jin Yamamura
Urogenital
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the influence of the urinary bladder volume on the detectability of urolithiasis at the ureterovesical junction (UVJ) using a low-dose CT (LD-CT) with iterative reconstruction (IR) and a standard-dose CT (SD-CT) without IR in a large cohort.

Methods

Four hundred patients (278 males (69.5%), mean 44.6 ± 14.7 years) with urolithiasis at the UVJ were investigated either by an LD-CT with IR (n = 289, 72%) or an SD-CT without IR (n = 111, 28%) protocol. The detectability of distal urolithiasis was assessed by a dichotomous assessment (definite or questionable) by two radiologists in consensus and by a quantitative analysis of the signal density distribution across a line drawn parallel to the distal ureter. Based on the resulting graph, minimum/maximum density values and mean/maximum upslopes and downslopes were derived and calculated automatically. In all patients, the total bladder volume was calculated by a slice-by-slice approach on axial CT images.

Results

Patients with definite stones showed significantly higher urinary bladder volumes compared to patients with questionable stones in both LD-CT and SD-CT (p < 0.01). These results were independent of stones’ length and patients’ BMI values. Using cutoffs of 92 ml for LD-CT and 69 ml for SD-CT, high positive predictive values/accuracy rates of 96%/85% (LD-CT) and 98%/86% (SD-CT) were observed to identify definite urinary stones.

Conclusions

Urinary bladder volume has a significant impact on the detectability of distal urolithiasis. Moderate bladder filling by pre-CT hydration with subsequent CT scan at the time of high urge to void increases the detectability of urinary stones at the UVJ in clinical routine.

Key Points

• Urinary bladder volume significantly affects the detectability of distal urolithiasis

• Higher bladder volumes are associated with improved detectability of distal urinary stones

• Oral pre-CT hydration for urolithiasis is easily applicable and cost-effective

Keywords

Urolithiasis Radiation dosage Image reconstruction Spiral CT Diagnostic imaging 

Abbreviations

BMI

Body mass index

CT

Computed tomography

DECT

Dual-source CT

DLP

Dose-length product

HU

Hounsfield units

IQR

Interquartile range

IR

Iterative reconstruction

LD-CT

Low-dose CT

NECT

Non-enhanced CT

NPV

Negative predictive value

PPV

Positive predictive value

ROC

Receiver operating curve analysis

SD-CT

Standard-dose CT

TCC

Transitional cell carcinoma

UVJ

Ureterovesical junction

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Maxim Avanesov.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Observational

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Raheem OA, Khandwala YS, Sur RL, Ghani KR, Denstedt JD (2017) Burden of urolithiasis: trends in prevalence, treatments, and costs. Eur Urol Focus 3:18–26Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scales CD, Saigal CS, Hanley JM et al (2014) The impact of unplanned postprocedure visits in the management of patients with urinary stones. Surgery 155:769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saigal CS, Joyse G, Timilsina AR (2005) Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int 68:1808–1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moon YJ, Kim HW, Kim JB, Kim HJ, Chang YS (2015) Distribution of ureteral stones and factors affecting their location and expulsion in patients with renal colic. Korean J Urol 56:717–721Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eisner BH, Reese A, Sheth S, Stoller ML (2009) Ureteral stone location at emergency room presentation with colic. J Urol 182:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ray AA, Ghiculete D, Pace KT, Honey RJ (2010) Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology 76:295–300Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thoeny HC, Hoppe H (2003) Unenhanced spiral CT in urolithiasis: indication, performance and interpretation. Rofo 175(7):904–910Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith R, Rosenfield A, Choe K et al (1995) Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 194:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Teichman JM (2004) Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 350:684–693Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR (2015) Guideline of guidelines: kidney stones. BJU Int 116:184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, Schmidlin FR, Iselin CE, Becker CD (2007) Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:927–933Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin DH, Lamberton GR, Broome DR et al (2010) Effect of reduced radiation CT protocols on the detection of renal calculi. Radiology 255:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G (2008) Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:396–401Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Türk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fulgham PF, Assimos DG, Pearle MS, Preminger GM (2013) Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculous disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol 189:1203–1213Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xiang H, Chan M, Brown V, Huo YR, Chan L, Ridley L (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of low-dose computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder for urolithiasis. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 61:582–590Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwon JK, Chang IH, Moon YT, Lee JB, Park HJ, Park SB (2015) Usefulness of low-dose nonenhanced computed tomography with iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: diagnostic performance and agreement between the urologist and the radiologist. Urology 85:531–538Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park SH, Do KK, Moon YT et al (2014) Pilot study of low-dose nonenhanced computed tomography with iterative reconstruction for diagnosis of urinary stones. Korean J Urol 55:581–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lukasiewicz A, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Coombs L et al (2014) Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States : a report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry. Radiology 271:445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weisenthal K, Kathrik P, Shaw M et al (2017) Evaluation of kidney stones with reduced–radiation dose CT: progress from 2011−2012 to 2015−2016—not there yet. Radiology 286:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hong JY, Lee DH, Chang IH, Park SB, Kim CW, Chi BH (2017) Inter-observer agreement between urologists and radiologists in interpreting the computed tomography images of emergency patients with renal colic. Urol J 15:6–9Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malkawi IM, Han E, Atalla CS, Santucci RA, O'Neil B, Wynberg JB (2016) Low-dose (10%) computed tomography may be inferior to standard-dose CT in the evaluation of acute renal colic in the emergency room setting. J Endourol 30:493–496Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Song H, Cho ST, Kim KK (2010) Urolithiasis investigation of the location of the ureteral stone and diameter of the ureter in patients with renal colic. Korean J Urol 51:198–201Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jellison FC, Smith JC, Heldt JP et al (2009) Effect of low dose radiation computerized tomography protocols on distal ureteral calculus detection. J Urol 182:2762–2767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deak PD, Smal Y, Kalender WA (2010) Multisection CT protocols: sex- and age-specific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology 257:158–166PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9:671–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schindelin J, Rueden CT, Hiner MC, Eliceiri KW (2015) The ImageJ ecosystem : an open platform for biomedical image analysis. Mol Reprod Dev 529:518–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kulkarni N, Uppot RN, Eisner BH, Sahani DV (2012) Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: how low can we go? Radiology 265:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gervaise A, Naulet P, Beuret F et al (2014) Low-dose CT with automatic tube current modulation, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and low tube voltage for the diagnosis of renal colic: impact of body mass index. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:553–560Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M et al (2008) Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol 43:112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wisenbaugh ES, Paden RG, Silva AC, Humphreys MR (2014) Dual-energy vs conventional computed tomography in determining stone composition. Urology 83:1243–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kordbacheh H, Baliyan V, Uppot RN, Eisner BH, Sahani DV, Kambadakone AR (2019) Dual-source dual-energy CT in detection and characterization of urinary stones in patients with large body habitus: observations in a large cohort. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:796–801Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jepperson M, Cernigliaro J, Sella D et al (2013) Dual-energy CT for the evaluation of urinary calculi: image interpretation , pitfalls and stone mimics. Clin Radiol 68:e707–e714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kundra V, Silverman PM (2003) Imaging in the diagnosis , staging , and follow-up of cancer of the urinary bladder. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1045–1054Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Browne RF, Meehan CP, Colville J, Power R, Torreggiani WC (2005) Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics 25:1609–1627Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC (1997) Soft-tissue “ Rim” sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi helical CT. Radiology 202:709–711Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S (2004) Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics 24:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bell TV, Fenlon HM, Davison BD, Ahari HK, Hussain S (1998) Unenhanced helical CT criteria to differentiate distal ureteral calculi from pelvic phleboliths. Radiology 207:363–367Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Levine J, Neitlich J, Smith RC (1999) The value of prone scanning to distinguish ureterovesical junction stones from ureteral stones that have passed into the bladder: leave no stone unturned. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:977–981Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Guest AR, Cohan RH, Korobkin M et al (2001) Assessment of the clinical utility of the rim and comet-tail signs in differentiating ureteral stones from phleboliths. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:1285–1291Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    De Perrot T, Hofmeister J, Burgermeister S et al (2019) Differentiating kidney stones from phleboliths in unenhanced low-dose computed tomography using radiomics and machine learning. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-6004-7
  42. 42.
    Fitzgerald MP, Stablein U, Brubaker L (2002) Urinary habits among asymptomatic women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1384–1388Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Latini JM, Mueller E, Lux MM, Fitzgerald MP, Kreder KJ (2004) Voiding frequency in a sample of asymptomatic American men. J Urol 172:980–984Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lukacz ES, Sampselle C, Gray M et al (2011) A healthy bladder : a consensus statement. Int J Clin Pract 65:1026–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moesbergen TC, de Ryke RJ, Dunbar S, Wells JE, Anderson NG (2011) Distal ureteral calculi: US follow-up. Radiology 260:575–580Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moe OW (2006) Kidney stones: pathophysiology and medical management. Lancet 367:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Borghi L, Meschi T, Amato F, Briganti A, Novarini A, Giannini A (1996) Urinary volume, water and recurrences in idiopathic calcium nephrolithiasis: a 5-year randomized prospective study. J Urol 155:839–843Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hanczar B, Hua J, Sima C, Weinstein J, Bittner M, Dougherty ER (2010) Small-sample precision of ROC-related estimates. Bioinformatics 26:822–830Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bean WT, Stafford R, Brashares JS (2012) The effects of small sample size and sample bias on threshold selection and accuracy assessment of species distribution models. Ecography 35:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schmidt-Holtz J, Laqmani A, Butscheidt S et al (2018) Iterative model reconstruction (IMR) in MDCT below 2 mSv for the detection of urinary calculi: diagnostic accuracy and image quality in comparison to filtered back-projection and 4th generation iterative reconstruction (iDose4). Rofo 190(07):630–636Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Remer EM, Herts BR, Primak A et al (2014) Detection of urolithiasis: comparison of 100% tube exposure images reconstructed with filtered back projection and 50% tube exposure images reconstructed with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction. Radiology 272:749–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maxim Avanesov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Julja Togmat
    • 1
  • Mehtap Solmaz
    • 1
  • Michael Gerhard Kaul
    • 1
  • Azien Laqmani
    • 1
  • Helena Guerreiro
    • 1
  • Sarah Keller
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lars Weisbach
    • 3
  • Gerhard Adam
    • 1
  • Jin Yamamura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyCharité – University Medicine BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations