Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitation of stone burden: imaging advances

  • Review
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The accurate diagnosis and quantitation of nephrolithiasis in patients with primary hyperoxaluria (PH) often directly impacts the medical and surgical management for individuals with both symptomatic and asymptomatic calculi. Traditionally, depiction of the size, location and appearance of urinary calculi has been provided by kidney, ureter and bladder plain film radiographs with or without tomography. Given advances in imaging technology there is a shift from conventional radiographs to cross-sectional imaging technology, namely unenhanced computed tomography (CT), CT urography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. These diagnostic techniques provide differing advantages and disadvantages for imaging stone disease. This review outlines imaging advances in the accurate diagnosis and quantitation of patients with metabolically active stone disease such as PH.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Diallo O, Janssens F, Hall M, Avni EF (2004) Type 1 primary hyperoxaluria in pediatric patients: renal sonographic patterns. Am J Roentgenol 183: 1767

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vrtiska TJ, Hattery RR, King BF, Charboneau JW, Smith LH, Williamson BJ et al. (1992) Role of ultrasound in medical management of patients with renal stone disease. Urol Radiol 14: 131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fowler KA, Locken JA, Duchesne JH, Williamson MR (2002) US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology 222: 109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kawashima A, Glockner JF, King BFJ (2003) CT urography and MR urography. Radiol Clinics North Am 41: 945

    Article  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 helical CT. Radiology 204: 27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Assi Z, Platt JF, Francis IR, Cohan RH, Korobkin M (2000) Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up. Am J Roentgenol 175: 333

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT. Am J Roentgenol 167: 1109

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fielding JR, Steel 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 5: 2071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen MYM, Zagoria RJ (1999) Can unenhanced helical computed tomography replace excretory urography for evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic? J Emerg Med 17: 299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Niall O, Russell J, MacGregor R, Duncan H, Mullins J (1999) A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol 161: 534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, Ozkaynak C, Karaali K, Kabaalioglu A et al. (1998) Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol 8: 212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Greess H, Nomayr A, Wolf H, Baum U, Lell M, Bowing B et al. (2002) Dose reduction in CT examination of children by an attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current (CARE Dose). Eur Radiol 12: 1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Dose reduction in multidetector CT using attenuation-based online tube current modulation. Am J Roentgenol 181: 331

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Kamath RS et al. (2004) Sixteen-detector row CT of abdomen and pelvis: study for optimization of z-axis modulation technique performed in 153 patients. Radiology 233: 241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL et al. (2004) Comparison of z-axis automatic tube current modulation technology with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. Radiology 232: 347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McCollough CH, Kofler J, Zink F (2004) Hot topic: the dose consequences of new CT technology: evaluation of AEC and dose efficiency from 4 to 64-slice systems. RSNA Chicago, November 2004.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA

    Terri J. Vrtiska

Authors
  1. Terri J. Vrtiska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terri J. Vrtiska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vrtiska, T.J. Quantitation of stone burden: imaging advances. Urol Res 33, 398–402 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0490-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-005-0490-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation