Prospective comparison of plain abdominal radiography with conventional and digital renal tomography in assessing renal extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients
- PMID: 2231921
- DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)39735-5
Prospective comparison of plain abdominal radiography with conventional and digital renal tomography in assessing renal extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients
Abstract
Most publications citing the effectiveness of renal extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy have used plain abdominal radiography to assess residual calculi after treatment. We compared radiologist sensitivity and specificity in the detection of calculi on plain abdominal radiographs versus conventional film-screen and digital renal tomograms in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. Of the patients 50 were imaged before and within 24 hours after lithotripsy. Six radiologists evaluated the resultant 300 studies for the presence and location of calculi. The mean sensitivity for digital tomograms was 83% for pre-lithotripsy and post-lithotripsy studies, which was significantly higher than for plain abdominal radiography and conventional tomography after lithotripsy. However, there were significantly more false positive stone diagnoses associated with digital tomogram interpretation. Signal detection analysis verified the over-all superiority of digital tomography for post-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy imaging. Calculus detection by conventional and digital tomography is superior to detection by plain abdominal radiography. However, because we did not perform delayed imaging, it is not possible to say what impact digital tomography might have on the management of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of endoscopic and radiological residual fragment rate following percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.J Urol. 1991 Apr;145(4):703-5. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38429-x. J Urol. 1991. PMID: 2005682
-
Potential for inter-observer and intra-observer variability in x-ray review to establish stone-free rates after lithotripsy.J Urol. 1992 Mar;147(3):559-62. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37306-8. J Urol. 1992. PMID: 1538428
-
[Diagnosis of obstruction and stone passage following ESWL therapy (extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy)].Rofo. 1987 Sep;147(3):294-7. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1048642. Rofo. 1987. PMID: 2823335 German.
-
The role of lithotripsy and its side effects.J Urol. 1989 Mar;141(3 Pt 2):793-7. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41012-3. J Urol. 1989. PMID: 2645438 Review.
-
Limitations of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Curr Opin Urol. 2007 Mar;17(2):109-13. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32802b70bc. Curr Opin Urol. 2007. PMID: 17285020 Review.
Cited by
-
Clinical assessment of phosphor-plate computed radiography: equipment, strategy, and methods.J Digit Imaging. 1989 Nov;2(4):220-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03170409. J Digit Imaging. 1989. PMID: 2488167
-
What is the definition of stone dust and how does it compare with clinically insignificant residual fragments? A comprehensive review.World J Urol. 2024 May 4;42(1):292. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04993-4. World J Urol. 2024. PMID: 38704492 Review.
-
Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Balkan Med J. 2012 Sep;29(3):230-5. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2012.082. Epub 2012 Sep 1. Balkan Med J. 2012. PMID: 25207006 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources