Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 21 June 2007

Abstract.

Unenhanced helical computed tomography (UHCT) has evolved into a well-accepted alternative to intravenous urography (IVU) in patients with acute flank pain and suspected ureterolithiasis. The purpose of our randomized prospective study was to analyse the diagnostic accuracy of UHCT vs IVU in the normal clinical setting with special interest on economic impact, applied radiation dose and time savings in patient management. A total of 122 consecutive patients with acute flank pain suggestive of urolithiasis were randomized for UHCT (n=59) or IVU (n=63). Patient management (time, contrast media), costs and radiation dose were analysed. The films were independently interpreted by four radiologists, unaware of previous findings, clinical history and clinical outcome. Alternative diagnoses if present were assessed. Direct costs of UHCT and IVU are nearly identical (310/309 Euro). Indirect costs are much lower for UHCT because it saves examination time and when performed immediately initial abdominal plain film (KUB) and sonography are not necessary. Time delay between access to the emergency room and start of the imaging procedure was 32 h 7 min for UHCT and 36 h 55 min for IVU. The UHCT took an average in-room time of 23 min vs 1 h 21 min for IVU. Mild to moderate adverse reactions for contrast material were seen in 3 (5%) patients. The UHCT was safe, as no contrast material was needed. The mean applied radiation dose was 3.3 mSv for IVU and 6.5 mSv for UHCT. Alternative diagnoses were identified in 4 (7%) UHCT patients and 3 (5%) IVU patients. Sensitivity and specificity of UHCT and IVU was 94.1 and 94.2%, and 85.2 and 90.4%, respectively. In patients with suspected renal colic KUB and US may be the least expensive and most easily accessable modalities; however, if needed and available, UHCT can be considered a better alternative than IVU because it has a higher diagnostic accuracy and a better economic impact since it is more effective, faster, less expensive and less risky than IVU. In addition, it also has the capability of detecting various additional renal and extrarenal pathologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, Heller H, Loughlin KR (1997) Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol 157:2071–2073

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Haddad MC, Sharif HS, Shaded MS et al. (1992) Renal colic: diagnosis and outcome. Radiology 184:83–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, Essenmacher KR, Verga M, Glickmann MG, Lange RC (1995) Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 194:789–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Katz DS, Lane MJ, Sommer FG (1997) Non-contrast spiral CT for patients with suspected renal colic. Eur Radiol 7:680–685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fielding JR, Silvermann SG, Samuel S, Zou KH, Loughlin KR (1998) Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: a replacement for excretory urography in planning treatment. AJR 171:1051–1053

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, Özkaynak C, Karaali K, Kabaalioglu A, Lüleci E (1998) Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol 8:212–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruppert-Kohlmayr AJ, Stacher R, Preidler KW, Zigeuner R, Primus G, Ricabona M, Szolar DHM (1999) Nativ-spiral-computertomographie bei patienten mit akutem flankenschmerz: sinn oder unsinn? Fortschr Röntgenstr 170:168–173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomson JM, Glocer J, Abbott C, Maling TM, Mark S (2001) Computed tomography in diagnosis of acute flank pain from urolithiasis: a randomized study comparing imaging costs and radiation dose. Australas Radiol 45:291–297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamm M, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Knöpfle E, Häckel T, Krawzak G, Harzmann R (2001) Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Eur Urol 39:460–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dalla-Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F (2001) Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 11:4–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Newhouse JH, Prien EL, Amis ES Jr, Dretler SP, Pfister RC (1984) Computed tomographic analysis of urinary calculi. AJR 142:545–548

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Blake SP, McNicholas MMJ, Raptopoulos V (1998) Nonopaque crystal deposition causing ureteric obstruction in patients with HIV undergoing indinavir therapy. AJR 171:717–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple NC, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs on helical unenhanced CT. AJR 167:1109–1113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Boridy IC, Takahashi N, Benson GS, Goldmann SM (1997) Unenhanced helical CT of ureterolithiasis: value of the tissue rim sign. AJR 168:997–1000

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC (1997) Soft tissue "rim" sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of the unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 202:709–711

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Grisi G, Stacul F, Cuttin R, Rimondini A, Meduri S, Dalla Palma L (2000) Cost analysis of different protocols for imaging a patient with acute flank pain. Eur Radiol 10:1620–1627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Patel M, Han SSY, Vaux K et al. (2000) A protocol of early spiral computed tomography for the detection of stones in patients with renal colic has reduced time to diagnosis and overall management costs. Aust NZ J Surg 70:39–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Homer JA, Davies-Payne DL, Peddinti BS (2001) Randomized prospective comparison of non-contrast enhanced helical computed tomography and intravenous urography in the diagnosis of acute ureteric colic. Australas Radiol 45:285–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced CT. AJR 166:97–101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Boulay I, Holtz P, Foley WD, White B, Begun FP (1999) Ureteral calculi: diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients. AJR 172:1485–1490

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, Bove P, Covey AM, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC (1998) The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the mangement of acute flank pain. J Urol 159:735–740

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR, Buckley RG, Donovan MS, Graham IR, Goff WB, Kane CJ (1998) Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52:982–987

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, Leder RA, Smith RHA, Nelson RH, Preminger GM (1998) Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 160:679–684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Denton ER, Mackenzie A, Greenwell T, Popert R, Rankin SC (1999) Unenhanced helical CT for renal colic: Is the radiation dose justifiable? Clin Radiol 54:444–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bergman A, Engiund A, Magnusson A (2000) Comparison between radiation doses during non-contrast CT and intravenous urography in patients with acute urinary tract colic. Eur Radiol 10 (Suppl 1):360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Meduri S, de Denaro M, Bregant P et al. (2000) Evaluation of dose and image quality of different protocols of spiral CT in patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 10 (Suppl 1):357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, Crawley T, Schofield D, Henson J, Lakin K, Connoly D, Giles J (2001) Low dose computed tomography in suspected renal colic. Clin Radiol 56:873–876

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Rimondini A, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Denaro M de, Bregant P, Dalla-Palma L (2001) Evaluation of image quality and dose in renal colic: comparison of different spiral-CT protocols. Eur Radiol 11:1140–1146

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Singal RK, Denstedt JD (1997) Contemporary management of ureteral stones. Urol Clin North Am 24:59–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Marberger M, Holblauer J, Turk C, Hobarth K, Albretch W (1994) Management of ureteric stones. Eur Urol 25:265–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Torkzad M (2002) Comments on Dalla Palma et al.: Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 12:256–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. S. A. Pfister

    Present address: Medical Imaging Lucerne, Theaterstrasse 7, 6003, Lucerne, Switzerland

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University Hospital, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    S. A. Pfister, S. Dellas, U. Otto, C. Buitrago, W. Wiesner & G. Bongartz

  2. Department of Urology, University Hospital, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    A. Deckart, S. Laschke & T. C. Gasser

  3. Department of Radiologic Physics, University Hospital, Petersgraben 4, 4031, Basel, Switzerland

    J. Roth

Authors
  1. S. A. Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Deckart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Laschke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Dellas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. U. Otto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Buitrago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. J. Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. W. Wiesner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Bongartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. T. C. Gasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. A. Pfister.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0689-8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pfister, S.A., Deckart, A., Laschke, S. et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. Eur Radiol 13, 2513–2520 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1937-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1937-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation