| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospital, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0030.
OBJECTIVE. We compared the sensitivity of CT scout radiography with that of abdominal radiography in revealing ureteral calculi on unenhanced helical CT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Over a 6-month period, patients presenting to the emergency department with acute flank pain were examined with standard abdominal radiography and unenhanced helical CT, which included CT scout radiography. In 60 patients in whom a diagnosis of ureteral calculus was made, CT scout radiographs and abdominal radiographs were examined by two interpreters who assessed whether stones could be visualized. All CT scout radiographs were viewed on a workstation using optimized window settings.
RESULTS. CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography revealed 28 (47%) and 36 (60%) of 60 ureteral calculi, respectively. All ureteral calculi that appeared on CT scout radiography also appeared on abdominal radiography. However, eight calculi that were visible on abdominal radiography were not visible on CT scout radiography. CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography revealed 28% and 46% of 39 calculi less than or equal to 3 mm in diameter, respectively. For 21 calculi larger than 3 mm, the sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography was 81% and 86%, respectively.
CONCLUSION. Abdominal radiography is more sensitive than CT scout radiography in revealing ureteral calculi; however, some calculi revealed on unenhanced helical CT cannot be seen on either abdominal radiography or CT scout radiography. Ureteral calculi not visible on either study can only be followed, when necessary, with unenhanced helical CT.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S J Freeman and H Sells Investigation of loin pain Imaging, March 1, 2008; 20(1): 38 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Memarsadeghi, C. Schaefer-Prokop, M. Prokop, T. H. Helbich, C. C. Seitz, I. M. Noebauer-Huhmann, and G. Heinz-Peer Unenhanced MDCT in Patients with Suspected Urinary Stone Disease: Do Coronal Reformations Improve Diagnostic Performance? Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2007; 189(2): W60 - W64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S J Freeman and H Sells Investigation of loin pain Imaging, August 1, 2005; 17(1): 19 - 33. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Memarsadeghi, G. Heinz-Peer, T. H. Helbich, C. Schaefer-Prokop, G. Kramer, M. Scharitzer, and M. Prokop Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT in Patients Suspected of Having Urinary Stone Disease: Effect of Section Width on Diagnosis Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 530 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. P. Tamm, P. M. Silverman, and W. P. Shuman Evaluation of the Patient with Flank Pain and Possible Ureteral Calculus Radiology, August 1, 2003; 228(2): 319 - 329. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Catalano, A. Nunziata, F. Altei, and A. Siani Suspected Ureteral Colic: Primary Helical CT Versus Selective Helical CT After Unenhanced Radiography and Sonography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 379 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. E. Van Beers, S. Dechambre, P. Hulcelle, R. Materne, and J. Jamart Value of Multislice Helical CT Scans and Maximum-Intensity-Projection Images to Improve Detection of Ureteral Stones at Abdominal Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2001; 177(5): 1117 - 1121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Y. Kim, K. S. Cho, K.-S. Song, J. H. Kim, J.-G. Kim, and H. K. Ha Urinary Calculi on Computed Radiography: Comparison of Observer Performance with Hard-Copy Versus Soft-Copy Images on Different Viewer Systems Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 331 - 335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. B. Dyer, M. Y. M. Chen, and R. J. Zagoria Intravenous Urography: Technique and Interpretation RadioGraphics, July 1, 2001; 21(4): 799 - 824. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
