Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gokce,Mehmet Ilker
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Ozden,Eriz, Suer,Evren, Gulpinar,Basak, Gulpınar,Omer, Tangal,Semih
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100086
Resumo: Introduction Achieving stone free status (SFS) is the goal of stone surgery. In this study it is aimed to compare effectiveness of unenhanced helical computerized tomography (UHCT), KUB and ultrasonography (US) for detection of residual RFs and predicition of stone releated events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PNL). Materials and Methods Patients underwent PNL for radiopaque stones between November 2007 and February 2010 were followed. Patients were examined within 24-48 hours after the procedure by KUB, US and UHCT. For stone size 4 mm was accepted as cut off level of significance.Sensitivity and specificity of KUB and US for detection of RFs and value of them for prediction of stone related events were calculated. Results SFS was achieved in 95 patients (54.9%) and when cut off value of 4 mm for RFs was employed, SFS was achieved in 131 patients (75.7%). Sensitivity was 70.5% for KUB, and 52.5% for US. UHCT was shown to be significantly more efficient for detection of RFs compared to both KUB (p=0.01) and US (p=0.001). When cut off level of 4 mm employed, sensitivity of KUB and US increased to 85.7% and 57.1%. Statistical significant superiority of UHCT still remained (p value vs. KUB: 0.03 and p value vs. US: 0.008). Conclusion UHCT is the most sensitive diagnostic tool for detecting RFs after PNL. It has higher sensitivity regardless of stone size compared to KUB and US. Additionally UHCT has higher capability of predicting occurrence of stone related events.
id SBU-1_db2c95cbe892d989d9ced2f19a5c228d
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382015000100086
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomyUrolithiasisKidney CalculiUltrasonographyTomography, X-Ray Computed Introduction Achieving stone free status (SFS) is the goal of stone surgery. In this study it is aimed to compare effectiveness of unenhanced helical computerized tomography (UHCT), KUB and ultrasonography (US) for detection of residual RFs and predicition of stone releated events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PNL). Materials and Methods Patients underwent PNL for radiopaque stones between November 2007 and February 2010 were followed. Patients were examined within 24-48 hours after the procedure by KUB, US and UHCT. For stone size 4 mm was accepted as cut off level of significance.Sensitivity and specificity of KUB and US for detection of RFs and value of them for prediction of stone related events were calculated. Results SFS was achieved in 95 patients (54.9%) and when cut off value of 4 mm for RFs was employed, SFS was achieved in 131 patients (75.7%). Sensitivity was 70.5% for KUB, and 52.5% for US. UHCT was shown to be significantly more efficient for detection of RFs compared to both KUB (p=0.01) and US (p=0.001). When cut off level of 4 mm employed, sensitivity of KUB and US increased to 85.7% and 57.1%. Statistical significant superiority of UHCT still remained (p value vs. KUB: 0.03 and p value vs. US: 0.008). Conclusion UHCT is the most sensitive diagnostic tool for detecting RFs after PNL. It has higher sensitivity regardless of stone size compared to KUB and US. Additionally UHCT has higher capability of predicting occurrence of stone related events. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2015-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100086International braz j urol v.41 n.1 2015reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.01.12info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGokce,Mehmet IlkerOzden,ErizSuer,EvrenGulpinar,BasakGulpınar,OmerTangal,Semiheng2015-04-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382015000100086Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2015-04-07T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
title Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
spellingShingle Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
Gokce,Mehmet Ilker
Urolithiasis
Kidney Calculi
Ultrasonography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
title_short Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
title_full Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
title_fullStr Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
title_sort Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy
author Gokce,Mehmet Ilker
author_facet Gokce,Mehmet Ilker
Ozden,Eriz
Suer,Evren
Gulpinar,Basak
Gulpınar,Omer
Tangal,Semih
author_role author
author2 Ozden,Eriz
Suer,Evren
Gulpinar,Basak
Gulpınar,Omer
Tangal,Semih
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gokce,Mehmet Ilker
Ozden,Eriz
Suer,Evren
Gulpinar,Basak
Gulpınar,Omer
Tangal,Semih
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Urolithiasis
Kidney Calculi
Ultrasonography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
topic Urolithiasis
Kidney Calculi
Ultrasonography
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
description Introduction Achieving stone free status (SFS) is the goal of stone surgery. In this study it is aimed to compare effectiveness of unenhanced helical computerized tomography (UHCT), KUB and ultrasonography (US) for detection of residual RFs and predicition of stone releated events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy (PNL). Materials and Methods Patients underwent PNL for radiopaque stones between November 2007 and February 2010 were followed. Patients were examined within 24-48 hours after the procedure by KUB, US and UHCT. For stone size 4 mm was accepted as cut off level of significance.Sensitivity and specificity of KUB and US for detection of RFs and value of them for prediction of stone related events were calculated. Results SFS was achieved in 95 patients (54.9%) and when cut off value of 4 mm for RFs was employed, SFS was achieved in 131 patients (75.7%). Sensitivity was 70.5% for KUB, and 52.5% for US. UHCT was shown to be significantly more efficient for detection of RFs compared to both KUB (p=0.01) and US (p=0.001). When cut off level of 4 mm employed, sensitivity of KUB and US increased to 85.7% and 57.1%. Statistical significant superiority of UHCT still remained (p value vs. KUB: 0.03 and p value vs. US: 0.008). Conclusion UHCT is the most sensitive diagnostic tool for detecting RFs after PNL. It has higher sensitivity regardless of stone size compared to KUB and US. Additionally UHCT has higher capability of predicting occurrence of stone related events.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100086
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100086
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.01.12
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.41 n.1 2015
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318074068729856