2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00240-016-0918-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differentiation of ureteral stones and phleboliths using Hounsfield units on computerized tomography: a new method without observer bias

Abstract: To differentiate ureteral stones and phleboliths by measuring density [as Hounsfield unit (HU)] and volume (as mm) of the opacities in the bony pelvis on unenhanced computerized tomography (U-CT). A total of 52 patients, who underwent semirigid ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for distal ureteral stone and had isochoronous phleboliths in U-CT, were included. Images were reviewed for density and volume of the opacities. Data were compared, and a cut-off value was defined with receiver operating characteristic… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Meanwhile, macroscopically visible lesion morphology, marginal sign, and comet tail sign on unenhanced CT can distinguish ureteral calculus from phlebolith [ 7 , 23 , 29 , 35 , 36 ]. Tanidir et al [ 37 ] measured the density and volume of ureteral calculus and phlebolith on CT images and found differences in CT images when the volume was 171 mm 3 and the density was 643 HU (sensitivity = 75% and 75%, specificity = 100% and 93%). Additionally, Lee et al [ 25 ] applied the artificial neural networks (ANN) method to analyze the morphological features of the ureteral calculus and phlebolith and found some differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meanwhile, macroscopically visible lesion morphology, marginal sign, and comet tail sign on unenhanced CT can distinguish ureteral calculus from phlebolith [ 7 , 23 , 29 , 35 , 36 ]. Tanidir et al [ 37 ] measured the density and volume of ureteral calculus and phlebolith on CT images and found differences in CT images when the volume was 171 mm 3 and the density was 643 HU (sensitivity = 75% and 75%, specificity = 100% and 93%). Additionally, Lee et al [ 25 ] applied the artificial neural networks (ANN) method to analyze the morphological features of the ureteral calculus and phlebolith and found some differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…while PCNL is the most effective and safe technique for larger stone sizes more than 2 cm. The prevalence of stone-free rate varied from 73-93% reported in various studies [11][12][13]. SWL is a failure or resistant cases modality while for larger stones, PCNL remains the standard reference.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the protocol for a recently published study [10], classification of distal ureteral stones and phleboliths was performed based on the cut-off values below:…”
Section: Semi-quantitative Methods Using Attenuation and Volumementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, a semi-quantitative method was applied using cutoff values for the volume and attenuation of the calcification to discriminate stones from phleboliths [10]; while another method used image features that were fed into an artificial network [11]. Irrespective of the CAD method used, a key question for their development is whether the images of the calcification and its local surroundings can provide sufficient information for differentiation, or whether distant information, such as from visible upper ureters, is also needed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%