lithiasis >0.5 cm, intact, and visible via simple radiography. A sample of 245 lithiases was obtained, with 87 rejected as they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Initially the three main actual diameters of each lithiasis were measured with a calibrator, then a plain X-ray and a CT scan were taken of the samples to determine the surface size in cm(2) for simple radiography; surface size and volume in cm(3) for CT scan, in bone window and soft tissue (Toshiba Aquillion 64, sections of 0.5 mm, 120 Kv, 250 mA). The tomographic area was calculated by employing the formula recommended by the European Association of Urology and scanner software. The actual, radiographic and tomographic measurements were taken by three different researchers who were unaware of the results obtained by the each other. The statistics program IBM SPSS Statistics(®) 19 was used. Differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon sign test. The bone window CT scan slightly overestimated the actual lithiasic size (0.12 vs. 0.17 cm(3)), while in soft tissue window the actual volume was practically doubled (0.12 vs. 0.21 cm(3)) (p < 0.05). We did not find statistically significant differences in the comparison between actual surface size (0.39 cm(2)) and bone window CT scan size when using the EAU formula or scanner software (0.36/0.37 cm(2)). Resulting measurements in soft tissue window tended to significantly overestimate the surface size, although only slightly (0.42/0.44 cm(2)), whilst the plain radiography underestimated it slightly but significantly (0.37 cm(2)). CT scan, using the bone window, is the technical methodology with which the greatest in vitro accuracy in which actual lithiasis measurements can be estimated, although the craniocaudal diameter measurement will be overestimated. Using soft tissue window gives an overestimated size.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract