Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Urinary calculi: improved detection and characterization with thin-slice multidetector CT

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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of reconstructed slice thickness on the detection and characterization of human urinary calculi on a multidetector helical CT scanner. Nineteen human urinary calculi of various chemical composition measuring 1.0–3.7 mm were embedded into agar in a chamber of a nylon body phantom. The phantom was imaged with a four detector-row CT scanner. The number of detected calculi increased as the reconstructed slice thickness decreased. Measured diameters and density of the visible calculi decreased as the slice thickness increased. The results of the present study support the use of thin reconstructed slices to detect and characterize urinary calculi.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. Am J Roentgenol 166:97–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Abramson S, Walders N, Applegate KE, Gilkeson RC, Robbin MR (2000) Impact in the emergency department of unenhanced CT on diagnostic confidence and therapeutic efficacy in patients with suspected renal colic: a prospective survey. Am J Roentgenol 175:1689–1695

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pfister SA, Deckart A, Laschke S, Dellas S, Otto U, Buitrago C, Roth J, Wiesner W, Bongartz G, Gasser TC (2003) 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Olcott EW, Sommer FG, Napel S (1997) Accuracy of detection and measurement of renal calculi: in vitro comparison of three-dimensional spiral CT, radiography, and nephrotomography. Radiology 204:19–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, Dalrymple N, Smith RC (1997) Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced CT. Radiology 204:27–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Beers BE, Dechambre S, Hulcelle P, Materne R, Jamart J (2001) Value of multislice helical CT scans and maximum-intensity-projection images to improve detection of ureteral stones at abdominal radiography. Am J Roentgenol 177:1117–1121

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, Carroll BA, Keogan MT, Paulson EK, DeLong DM, Nelson RC (2000) Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology 217:792–797

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 urography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52:982–987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Takahashi N, Kawashima A, Ernst RD, Boridy IC, Goldman SM, Benson GS, Sandler CM (1998) Ureterolithiasis: can clinical outcome be predicted with unenhanced helical CT? Radiology 208:97–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC (2002) Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. Am J Roentgenol 178:101–103

    Google Scholar 

  11. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, Chua GT, Lingeman JE, Williams JC Jr (2000) Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size, and scan collimation. Am J Roentgenol 175:329–332

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mostafavi MR, Ernst RD, Saltzman B (1998) Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 159:673–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bellin MF, Renard-Penna R, Conort P, Bissery A, Meric JB, Daudon M, Mallet A, Richard F, Grenier P (2004) Helical CT evaluation of the chemical composition of urinary tract calculi with a discriminant analysis of CT-attenuation values and density. Eur Radiol 14:2134–2140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen MY, Zagoria RJ, Saunders HS, Dyer RB (1999) Trends in the use of unenhanced helical CT for acute urinary colic. Am J Roentgenol 173:1447–1450

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tublin ME, Murphy ME, Delong DM, Tessler FN, Kliewer MA (2002) Conspicuity of renal calculi at unenhanced CT: effects of calculus composition and size and CT technique. Radiology 225:91–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tamm EP, Silverman PM, Shuman WP (2003) Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus. Radiology 228:319–329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rimondini A, Pozzi Mucelli R, De Denaro M, 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. Am J Roentgenol 180:305–311

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Katz DS, Venkataramanan N, Napel S, Sommer FG (2003) Can low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT be used for routine evaluation of suspected renal colic? Am J Roentgenol 180:313–315

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fuchs T, Kachelrieß M, Kalender WA (2000) Technical advances in multi-slice spiral CT. Eur J Radiol 36:69–73

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahesh M, Scatarige JC, Cooper J, Fishman EK (2001) Dose and pitch relationship for a particular multislice CT scanner. Am J Roentgenol 177:1273–1275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brooks RA, Di Chiro G (1976) Statistical limitations in X-ray reconstructive tomography. Med Phys 3:237–240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Verdun FR, Denys A, Valley JF, Schnyder P, Meuli RA (2002) Detection of low-contrast objects: experimental comparison of single- and multi-detector row CT with a phantom. Radiology 223:426–431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheck RJ, Coppenrath EM, Kellner MW, Lehmann KJ, Rock C, Rieger J, Rothmeier L, Schweden F, Bauml AA, Hahn K (1998) Radiation dose and image quality in spiral computed tomography: multicentre evaluation at six institutions. Br J Radiol 71:734–744

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shin HO, Falck CV, Galanski M (2004) Low-contrast detectability in volume rendering: a phantom study on multidetector-row spiral CT data. Eur Radiol 14:341–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wessling J, Fischbach R, Meier N, Allkemper T, Klusmeier J, Ludwig K, Heindel W (2003) CT colonography: protocol optimization with multi-detector row CT study in an anthropomorphic colon phantom. Radiology 228:753–759

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor SA, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Morgan PR, Talbot IC, Fry N, Saunders BP, Khosraviani K, Atkin W (2003) Multi-detector row CT colonography: effect of collimation, pitch, and orientation on polyp detection in a human colectomy specimen. Radiology 229:109–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Weg N, Scheer MR, Gabor MP (1998) Liver lesions: improved detection with dual-detector-array CT and routine 2.5-mm thin collimation. Radiology 209:417–426

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Haider MA, Amitai MM, Rappaport DC, O’Malley ME, Hanbidge AE, Redston M, Lockwood GA, Gallinger S (2002) Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (≤1.5 cm) liver metastases: is thinner collimation better? Radiology 225:137–142

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saini S (2004) Multi-detector row CT: principles and practice for abdominal applications. Radiology 233:323–327

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, Chua GT, Lingeman JE, Williams JC (2000) Helical CT of urinary calculi. Am J Roentgenol 175:329–332

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Arac M, Celik H, Oner AY, Gultekin S, Gumus T, Kosar S (2005) Distinguishing pelvic phleboliths from distal ureteral calculi: thin-slice CT findings. Eur Radiol 15:65–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Prokop M (2003) Multislice CT: technical principles and future trends. Eur Radiol 13:M3–M13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Radiology Unit, Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium

    Etienne Ketelslegers & Bernard E. Van Beers

Authors
  1. Etienne Ketelslegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernard E. Van Beers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard E. Van Beers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ketelslegers, E., Van Beers, B.E. Urinary calculi: improved detection and characterization with thin-slice multidetector CT. Eur Radiol 16, 161–165 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2813-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2813-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation