Three‐dimensional mean stone density measurement is superior for predicting extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success

Abstract

Objectives The objective of the present study was to investigate the usefulness of three‐dimensional images of stones to measure mean stone density for predicting the outcome of shock wave lithotripsy. Methods We retrospectively identified 239 patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy with pretreatment non‐contrast computed tomography. We automatically measured the mean stone density of three‐dimensional images of stones using a high‐functional viewer. For comparison, mean stone density was also measured by two previously reported techniques using both the abdominal windows and the bone windows on the axial slice at the level of the largest diameter of the stone. We compared the outcome predictive power after the first treatment with outcomes according to measurement by four other methods. We also carried out logistic regression analysis, including mean stone density measured by three‐dimensional images. Results The single treatment success rate was 48.5%. The effect size (14.148) of the mean stone density measured by three‐dimensional images was higher than those of the other four manual methods. In addition, the area under the curve (0.6330) of the mean stone density measured by three‐dimensional images was significantly higher than those of the other methods. Increasing stone volume (P = 0.002) and increasing mean stone density measured by three‐dimensional images (P = 0.023) were significant independent predictors of the treatment outcome on multivariate analysis. Conclusions This is the first study to compare the predictive powers for shock wave lithotripsy outcome of various mean stone density measuring methods. There is an indication that mean stone density automatically measured by three‐dimensional images of stones is more useful than other measuring methods for predicting outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy.

The Impact of Stone Density on Operative Complications of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Multicenter Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis

“…3 Among these, stone density has been shown to be an indicator of stone hardness and is measured on the Hounsfield unit (HU) scale. 4,5 The HU is obtained from a linear transformation of the measured attenuation coefficients during noncontrast computerized tomography (NCCT) reconstruction. With high stone densities, the urologist often has difficulty in stone fragmentation, which might result in higher complication rates due to prolonged operation times and higher intrapelvic pressure.…”

The impact of Hounsfield unit-related variables on percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes

“…Furthermore, there was no significant correlation between OP time and HU as a continuous variable. Considering stone size measurement, Patel et al raised issues regarding limits because of high inter-observer variability from the existing manual measurement and the proposed effectiveness of stone measurement methods using commercialized computer programs 18,19 . Nevertheless, there is insufficient clinical or cost-related evidence to start using it in clinical practice.…”

Efficacy of ultrasound monitoring during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: A multi‐institutional propensity score‐matched study

“…During a machine learning analysis, the SFR was influenced by the mean stone density, stone volume, and SSD. 15,16 Yamashita et al 17 reported that the automatically measured three-dimensional mean stone density was more useful than other factors for predicting the outcomes of SWL. Given their location, lower caliceal stones tended to have poorer outcomes than upper or middle caliceal stones.…”