Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging for Stones

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urinary Tract Stone Disease

  • 1672 Accesses

Abstract

Imaging for stones covers the techniques available and evaluates the optimal techniques for the diagnosis of stone disease. This is mainly by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), but the roles of intravenous urography (IVU), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), fluoroscopic studies, and isotope renography are also discussed. Thin-section MDCT allows three-dimensional (3D) postprocessing with multiplanar reconstruction, thus providing an accurate assessment of stone burden and distribution. CT urography is explained, and its role in determining pelvicalyceal anatomy and for planning therapy is discussed. The section on evaluation of the results of therapy is divided into imaging for postoperative complications, and assessment for residual stones. The final section covers evaluation of function by isotope renography. An extensive review of the literature has been undertaken to bring an up-to-date and evidence-based slant to imaging, which is pivotal to stone management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cowen AR, Davies AG, Kengyelics SM. Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:1132–1141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Slovis TL. The pictures are great but is the radiation dose greater than required? Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cervi PM, Bighi S, Merlo L, Lupi L, Vita G. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography during excretory urography: our experience. Ann Radiol (Paris). 1990;33:321–328.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim AY, Cho KS, Song KS, Kim JH, Kim JG, Ha HK. Urinary calculi on computed radiography: comparison of observer performance with hard-copy versus soft-copy images on different viewer systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:331–335.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldwasser B, Cohan RH, Dunnick NR, Andriani RT, Carson CC III, Weinerth JL. Role of linear tomography in evaluation of patients with nephrolithiasis. Urology. 1989;33:253–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwartz G, Lipschitz S, Becker JA. Detection of renal calculi: the value of tomography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984;143:143–145.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomsen HS. Current evidence on prevention and management of contrast-induced nephropathy. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(suppl 6):F33-F37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomsen HS. European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines on contrast media application. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:70–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bradley AJ, Taylor PM. Does bowel preparation improve the quality of intravenous urography? Br J Radiol. 1996;69:906–909.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zagoria RJ, Donati DL, Chen MY, Gelfand DW, Ott DJ, Dyer RB. Cost-effective filming sequence for intravenous urography. South Med J. 1994;87:899–901.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bradley AJ, Rajashanker B, Atkinson SL, Kennedy JN, Purcell RS. Accuracy of reporting of intravenous urograms: a comparison of radiographers with radiology specialist registrars. Clin Radiol. 2005;60:807–811.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ. Intravenous urography: technique and interpretation. Radiographics. 2001;21:799–821.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ozden E, Gogus C, Turkolmez K, Yagci C. Is fluid ingestion really necessary during ultrasonography for detecting ureteral stones? A prospective randomized study. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:1651–1657.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Akcar N, Ozkan IR, Adapinar B, Kaya T. Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of urinary tract obstruction by stone. J Clin Ultrasound. 2004;32:286–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995;194:789–794.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Levine J, Neitlich J, Smith RC. 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. 1999;172:977–981.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Denton ER, Mackenzie A, Greenwell T, Popert R, Rankin SC. Unenhanced helical CT for renal colic–is the radiation dose justifiable? Clin Radiol. 1999;54:444–447.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams LR, Smith A, Hufton A, Bradley AJ. Comparison of effective radiation doses of conventional and two-phase CT Urography. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:C–402.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chow LC, Kwan SW, Olcott EW, Sommer G. Split-bolus MDCT urography with synchronous nephrographic and excretory phase enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:314–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dalrymple NC, Prasad SR, El-Merhi FM, Chintapalli KN. Price of isotropy in multidetector CT. Radiographics. 2007;27:49–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Kofler JM Jr. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics. 2006;26:503–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dalrymple NC, Prasad SR, Freckleton MW, Chintapalli KN. Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): introduction to the language of three-dimensional imaging with multidetector CT. Radiographics. 2005;25:1409–1428.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ, Hartman RP, McCollough CH, King BF Jr. CT urography. Radiographics. 2004;24(suppl 1):S35–S54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nolte-Ernsting C, Cowan N. Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:2670–2686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Noroozian M, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Cowan NC, Ellis JH. Multislice CT urography: state of the art. Br J Radiol. 2004;77(Spec No 1):S74–S86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG, Nolte-Ernsting CC, Takahashi S, Cohan RH. CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG, Nolte-Ernsting CC, Takahashi S, Cohan RH. CT urography: definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morcos SK. Computed tomography urography technique, indications and limitations. Curr Opin Urol. 2007;17:56–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Wildberger JE, Borchers H, Schmitz-Rode T, Gunther RW. Multi-slice CT urography after diuretic injection: initial results. Rofo. 2001;173:176–180.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Silverman SG, Akbar SA, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Bhagwat JG, Seifter JL. Multi-detector row CT urography of normal urinary collecting system: furosemide versus saline as adjunct to contrast medium. Radiology. 2006;240:749–755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Caoili EM, Inampudi P, Cohan RH, Ellis JH. Optimization of multi-detector row CT urography: effect of compression, saline administration, and prolongation of acquisition delay. Radiology. 2005;235:116–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roy C, Jeantroux J, Irani FG, Sauer B, Lang H, Saussine C. Accuracy of intermediate dose of furosemide injection to improve multidetector row CT urography. Eur J Radiol. 2007;17:1262–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leyendecker JR, Barnes CE, Zagoria RJ. MR urography: techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2008;28:23–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Adam GB, Gunther RW. MR urography: examination techniques and clinical applications. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:355–372.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thomsen HS. ESUR guideline: gadolinium-based contrast media and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2692–2696.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Taylor A. Radionuclide renography: a personal approach. Semin Nucl Med. 1999;29:102–127.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Taylor A Jr, Nally JV. Clinical applications of renal scintigraphy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:31–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ. Abnormal calcifications in the urinary tract. Radiographics. 1998;18:1405–1424.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dyer RB, Zagoria RJ. Radiological patterns of mineralization as predictor of urinary stone etiology, associated pathology, and therapeutic outcome. J Stone Dis. 1992;4:272–282.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Eray O, Cubuk MS, Oktay C, Yilmaz S, Cete Y, Ersoy FF. The efficacy of urinalysis, plain films, and spiral CT in ED patients with suspected renal colic. Am J Emerg Med. 2003;21:152–154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, Dalrymple N, Smith RC. Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997;204:27–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, Jarrett TW. Plain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol. 2000;164:308–310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Amis ES Jr. Epitaph for the urogram. Radiology. 1999;213:639–640.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Becker JA, Pollack HM, McClennan BL. Urography survives. Radiology. 2001;218:299–300.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Gallagher HJ, Tolley DA. 2000 AD: still a role for the intravenous urogram in stone management? Curr Opin Urol. 2000;10:551–555.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pfister SA, Deckart A, Laschke S, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2513–2520.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mutazindwa T, Husseini T. Imaging in acute renal colic: the intravenous urogram remains the gold standard. Eur J Radiol. 1996;23:238–240.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shine S. Urinary calculus: IVU vs. CT renal stone? A critically appraised topic. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33:41–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pollack HM, Arger PH, Goldberg BB, Mulholland SG. Ultrasonic detection of nonopaque renal calculi. Radiology. 1978;127:233–237.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fowler KA, Locken JA, Duchesne JH, Williamson MR. US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology. 2002;222:109–113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ulusan S, Koc Z, Tokmak N. Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: comparison with CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35:256–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Aytac SK, Ozcan H. Effect of color Doppler system on the twinkling sign associated with urinary tract calculi. J Clin Ultrasound. 1999;27:433–439.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Lee JY, Kim SH, Cho JY, Han D. Color and power Doppler twinkling artifacts from urinary stones: clinical observations and phantom studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:1441–1445.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology. 2000;217:792–797.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Rosen CL, Brown DF, Sagarin MJ, Chang Y, McCabe CJ, Wolfe RE. Ultrasonography by emergency physicians in patients with suspected ureteral colic. J Emerg Med. 1998;16:865–870.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Patlas M, Farkas A, Fisher D, Zaghal I, Hadas-Halpern I. Ultrasound vs CT for the detection of ureteric stones in patients with renal colic. Br J Radiol. 2001;74:901–904.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chen MY, Zagoria RJ, Saunders HS, Dyer RB. Trends in the use of unenhanced helical CT for acute urinary colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:1447–1450.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998;159:735–740.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, et al. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998;160:679–684.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Chowdhury FU, Kotwal S, Raghunathan G, Wah TM, Joyce A, Irving HC. Unenhanced multidetector CT (CT KUB) in the initial imaging of suspected acute renal colic: evaluating a new service. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:970–977.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S. Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics. 2004;24(suppl 1):S11-S28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Dean TE, Harrison NW, Bishop NL. CT scanning in the diagnosis and management of radiolucent urinary calculi. Br J Urol. 1988;62:405–408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schwartz BF, Schenkman N, Armenakas NA, Stoller ML. Imaging characteristics of indinavir calculi. J Urol. 1999;161:1085–1087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Gentle DL, Stoller ML, Jarrett TW, Ward JF, Geib KS, Wood AF. Protease inhibitor-induced urolithiasis. Urology. 1997;50:508–511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167:1109–1113.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Dalrymple NC, Casford B, Raiken DP, Elsass KD, Pagan RA. Pearls and pitfalls in the diagnosis of ureterolithiasis with unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics. 2000;20:439–447.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Goldman SM, Faintuch S, Ajzen SA, et al. Diagnostic value of attenuation measurements of the kidney on unenhanced helical CT of obstructive ureterolithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:1251–1254.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC. Soft-tissue “rim” sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997;202:709–711.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Boridy IC, Takahashi N, Benson GS, Goldman SM. Unenhanced helical CT of ureterolithiasis: value of the tissue rim sign. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:997–1000.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Ureterolithiasis: value of the tail sign in differentiating phleboliths from ureteral calculi at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1999;211:619–621.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Rosser CJ, Zagoria R, Dixon R, et al. Is there a learning curve in diagnosing urolithiasis with noncontrast helical computed tomography? Can Assoc Radiol J. 2000;51:177–181.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Boridy IC, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Acute ureterolithiasis: nonenhanced helical CT findings of perinephric edema for prediction of degree of ureteral obstruction. Radiology. 1999;213:663–667.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lorberboym M, Kapustin Z, Elias S, Nikolov G, Katz R. The role of renal scintigraphy and unenhanced helical computerized tomography in patients with ureterolithiasis. Eur J Nucl Med. 2000;27:441–446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Sfakianakis GN, Cohen DJ, Braunstein RH, et al. MAG3-F0 scintigraphy in decision making for emergency intervention in renal colic after helical CT positive for a urolith. J Nucl Med. 2000;41:1813–1822.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Miller FH, Kraemer E, Dalal K, Keppke A, Huo E, Hoff FL. Unexplained renal colic: what is the utility of IV contrast? Clin Imaging. 2005;29:331–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, et al. Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:873–876.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Mulkens TH, Daineffe S, De WR, et al. Urinary stone disease: comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:553–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, et al. Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30:44–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kawashima A, Glockner JF, King BF Jr. CT urography and MR urography. Radiol Clin N Am. 2003;41:945–961.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Spencer JA, Chahal R, Kelly A, Taylor K, Eardley I, Lloyd SN. Evaluation of painful hydronephrosis in pregnancy: magnetic resonance urographic patterns in physiological dilatation versus calculous obstruction. J Urol. 2004;171:256–260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Jung P, Brauers A, Nolte-Ernsting CA, Jakse G, Gunther RW. Magnetic resonance urography enhanced by gadolinium and diuretics: a comparison with conventional urography in diagnosing the cause of ureteric obstruction. BJU Int. 2000;86:960–965.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Regan F, Petronis J, Bohlman M, Rodriguez R, Moore R. Perirenal MR high signal–a new and sensitive indicator of acute ureteric obstruction. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:445–450.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Sudah M, Vanninen R, Partanen K, Heino A, Vainio P, la Opas M. MR urography in evaluation of acute flank pain: T2-weighted sequences and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional FLASH compared with urography. Fast low-angle shot. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176:105–112.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Sudah M, Vanninen RL, Partanen K, et al. Patients with acute flank pain: comparison of MR urography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 2002;223:98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Otnes B, Sandnes H. Comparison of radiological measurement and actual size of ureteral calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1978;12:155–156.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Sandhu C, Anson KM, Patel U. Urinary tract stonesLPart I: role of radiological imaging in diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:415–421.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Foley WD. Renal MDCT. Eur J Radiol. 2003;45(suppl 1):S73–S78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Hubert J, Blum A, Cormier L, Claudon M, Regent D, Mangin P. Three-dimensional CT-scan reconstruction of renal calculi. A new tool for mapping-out staghorn calculi and follow-up of radiolucent stones. Eur Urol. 1997;31:297–301.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Van Beers BE, Dechambre S, Hulcelle P, Materne R, Jamart J. Value of multislice helical CT scans and maximum-intensity-projection images to improve detection of ureteral stones at abdominal radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:1117–1121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Lin WC, Uppot RN, Li CS, Hahn PF, Sahani DV. Value of automated coronal reformations from 64-section multidetector row computerized tomography in the diagnosis of urinary stone disease. J Urol. 2007;178:907–911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Memarsadeghi M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Prokop M, et al. Unenhanced MDCT in patients with suspected urinary stone disease: do coronal reformations improve diagnostic performance? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:W60-W64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Narepalem N, Sundaram CP, Boridy IC, Yan Y, Heiken JP, Clayman RV. Comparison of helical computerized tomography and plain radiography for estimating urinary stone size. J Urol. 2002;167:1235–1238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Dundee P, Bouchier-Hayes D, Haxhimolla H, Dowling R, Costello A. Renal tract calculi: comparison of stone size on plain radiography and noncontrast spiral CT scan. J Endourol. 2006;20:1005–1009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Memarsadeghi M, Heinz-Peer G, Helbich TH, et al. Unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having urinary stone disease: effect of section width on diagnosis. Radiology. 2005;235:530–536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kampa RJ, Ghani KR, Wahed S, Patel U, Anson KM. Size matters: a survey of how urinary-tract stones are measured in the UK. J Endourol. 2005;19:856–860.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Raman JD, Pearle MS. Management options for lower pole renal calculi. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18:214–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, Heller H, Loughlin KR. Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol. 1997;157:2071–2073.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Greenstein A, Beri A, Sofer M, Matzkin H. Is intravenous urography a prerequisite for renal shockwave lithotripsy? J Endourol. 2003;17:835–839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Ghani KR, Rintoul M, Patel U, Anson K. Three-dimensional planning of percutaneous renal stone surgery in a horseshoe kidney using 16-slice CT and volume-rendered movies. J Endourol. 2005;19:461–463.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Sengupta S, Donnellan S, Vincent JM, Webb DR. CT analysis of caliceal anatomy in the supine and prone positions. J Endourol. 2000;14:555–557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Fong YK, Peh SO, Ho SH, Ng FC, Quek PL, Ng KK. Lower pole ratio: a new and accurate predictor of lower pole stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy? Int J Urol. 2004;11:700–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Sandhu C, Anson KM, Patel U. Urinary tract stones–Part II: current status of treatment. Clin Radiol. 2003;58:422–433.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC. Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:101–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, et al. Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi The American Urological Association. J Urol. 1997;158:1915–1921.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Pearle MS, Pierce HL, Miller GL, et al. Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1998;160:1260–1264.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Pearle MS, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2001;166:1255–1260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Ng CS, Herts BR, Streem SB. Percutaneous access to upper pole renal stones: role of prone 3-dimensional computerized tomography in inspiratory and expiratory phases. J Urol. 2005;173:124–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Bilen CY, Kocak B, Kitirci G, Danaci M, Sarikaya S. Simple trigonometry on computed tomography helps in planning renal access. Urology. 2007;70:242–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Park S, Pearle MS. Imaging for percutaneous renal access and management of renal calculi. Urol Clin N Am. 2006;33:353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Rassweiler JJ, Renner C, Chaussy C, Thuroff S. Treatment of renal stones by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: an update. Eur Urol. 2001;39:187–199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Weld KJ, Montiglio C, Morris MS, Bush AC, Cespedes RD. Shock wave lithotripsy success for renal stones based on patient and stone computed tomography characteristics. Urology. 2007;70:1043–1046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. 2001;166:2072–2080.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Wang LJ, Wong YC, Chuang CK, et al. Predictions of outcomes of renal stones after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy from stone characteristics determined by unenhanced helical computed tomography: a multivariate analysis. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:2238–2243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Segura JW. Staghorn calculi. Urol Clin N Am. 1997;24:71–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Gettman MT, Segura JW. Struvite stones: diagnosis and current treatment concepts. J Endourol. 1999;13:653–658.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Ramakumar S, Patterson DE, Leroy AJ, et al. Prediction of stone composition from plain radiographs: a prospective study. J Endourol. 1999;13:397–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Bani-Hani AH, Segura JW, Leroy AJ. Urinary matrix calculi: our experience at a single institution. J Urol. 2005;173:120–123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Nakada SY, Hoff DG, Attai S, Heisey D, Blankenbaker D, Pozniak M. Determination of stone composition by noncontrast spiral computed tomography in the clinical setting. Urology. 2000;55:816–819.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, et al. Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol. 2007;14:1441–1447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Preminger GM. Pharmacologic treatment of uric acid calculi. Urol Clin N Am. 1987;14:335–338.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Kim SC, Hatt EK, Lingeman JE, Nadler RB, McAteer JA, Williams JC Jr. Cystine: helical computerized tomography characterization of rough and smooth calculi in vitro. J Urol. 2005;174:1468–1470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Kessaris DN, Bellman GC, Pardalidis NP, Smith AG. Management of hemorrhage after percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol. 1995;153:604–608.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Gremmo E, Ballanger P, Dore B. Aubert J (Hemorrhagic complications during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Retrospective studies of 772 cases). Prog Urol. 1999;9:460–463.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Lehtoranta K, Mankinen P, Taari K, Rannikko S, Lehtonen T, Salo J. Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy; sensitivities of different imaging methods in renal stone detection. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1995;84:43–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Osman Y, El-Tabey N, Refai H, et al. Detection of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol. 2008;179:198–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Park J, Hong B, Park T, Park HK. Effectiveness of noncontrast computed tomography in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2007;21:684–687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Pearle MS, Watamull LM, Mullican MA. Sensitivity of noncontrast helical computerized tomography and plain film radiography compared to flexible nephroscopy for detecting residual fragments after percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol. 1999;162:23–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Bugg CE Jr, El-Galley R, Kenney PJ, Burns JR. Follow-up functional radiographic studies are not mandatory for all patients after ureteroscopy. Urology. 2002;59:662–667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Chen KK, Chen MT, Yeh SH, Chang LS. Radionuclide renal function study in various surgical treatments of upper urinary stones. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei). 1992;49:319–327.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Moskovitz B, Halachmi S, Sopov V, et al. Effect of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on renal function: assessment with quantitative SPECT of (99 m)Tc-DMSA renal scintigraphy. J Endourol. 2006;20:102–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Elgazzar AH, Mahmoud AH, el Sayed M, et al. Evaluation of renal functional changes after extracorporeal piezoelectric lithotripsy (EPL) by radionuclide studies. Nucl Med Commun. 1990;11:579–583.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Gupta M, Bolton DM, Irby P III, et al. The effect of newer generation lithotripsy upon renal function assessed by nuclear scintigraphy. J Urol. 1995;154:947–950.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Michaels EK, Pavel DG, Orellana P, Montes A, Olea E. Use of radionuclide renal imaging for clinical followup after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of renal stones. J Urol. 1992;148:1015–1021.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, Lancashire, UK

    Alison J. Bradley

Authors
  1. Alison J. Bradley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Nagaraja Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison J. Bradley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Urology, Spire Manchester Hospital, Russell Road, Manchester, M16 8AJ, United Kingdom

    Nagaraja P. Rao

  2. Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, 27710, North Carolina, USA

    Glenn M. Preminger

  3. Department of Urology, South Manchester University Hospitals, Manchester, M20 2LR, United Kingdom

    John P. Kavanagh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bradley, A.J., Rao, P.N. (2010). Imaging for Stones. In: Rao, N., Preminger, G., Kavanagh, J. (eds) Urinary Tract Stone Disease. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-362-0_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-362-0_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-361-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-362-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation