Assesment of Criteria in Differentiation of Ureteral Stones from Phleboliths with Thin-Slice Unenhanced Computed Tomography

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 4, 188 - 193, 01.08.2010

Koray Akdamar Mehmet Ruhi Onur Çağatay Andiç Metin Çubuk

Öz

Objective: The purpose of this study was to asses the accuracy of criteria in distinguishing distal urinary stones from phleboliths defined in the literature with thin-slice unenhanced helical computed tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Between October 2004 and April 2005, we performed 3 cm length thin-slice (2 mm section thickness, pitch:1) helical CT on 31 patients with urinary stones and on 43 patients with 80 phleboliths. The size, shape, central lucency, soft tissue rim sign, comet-tail sign, density values and profile analysis of each calcification were recorded. Results: Fifty two (65%) of 80 phleboliths were round and 28 (35%) were oval shape. On the contrary, ten (32%) of 31 stone were round, 8 (26%) of them were of oval shape. Geometric configuration was seen in thirteen (42%) stones but not in any phleboliths. Mean densities of phleboliths and stones were 386,5 HU (131 HU/935 HU) and 1088 HU (526 - 1594), respectively. This difference was statistically significant (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

-

Üreter Taşları ile Flebolitlerin İnce kesit Kontrastsız Bilgisayarlı Tomografi ile Ayırtedilmesinde Kullanılan Kriterlerin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı kontrastsız helikal bilgisayarlı tomografide üreter taşları ile flebolitleri ayırtetmek için daha önce literatürde tanımlanmış olan kriterlerin yeterliliğini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Altı aylık zaman periyodunda taşı olan 31 hastaya ve toplam 80 fleboliti olan 43 hastaya 3 cm uzunluğunda ince kesit (kesit kalınlığı: 2 mm, pitch: 1) olmak üzere kontrastsız helikal BT çekimi yapıldı. Her kalsifikasyonun boyut, şekil, santral lüsensi, yumuşak doku halka işareti, kuyruklu yıldız işareti, densite değerleri ve profil analizi kaydedildi. Bulgular: Flebolitlerin 52'si (%65) yuvarlak, 28'i oval (%35) şekilliydi. Taşların ise 10'u (%32) yuvarlak, 8'i (%26) oval şekilliydi. Taşların 13'ü (%42) geometrik şekilli iken hiçbir flebolit geometrik şekilli değildi. Flebolit ve taşların ortalama densite değerleri sırasıyla 386,5 HU (131 HU/935 HU) ve 1088 HU (526 HU - 1594 HU) ölçülmüş olup bu değerler arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı idi (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilgisayarlı tomografi, üreter taşı, flebolit

Kaynakça

• 1. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, Leder RA, Smith RHA, Nelson RH, Preminger GM. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 1998; 160: 679-684.
• 2. Katz DS, Lane MJ, Sommer FG. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: incidence of associated urinary tract findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166: 1319-1322.
• 3. Smith RC, Levine C, Rosenfeld A. Helical CT of urinary stones: Epidemiology, origin, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Radiol Clin North Am 1999; 37: 911-952.
• 4. Bell TV, Fenlon HM, Davison BD, Ahari HK, Hussain S. Unenhanced helical CT criteria to differentiate distal ureteral calculi from pelvic phleboliths. Radiology 1998; 207: 363-367.
• 5. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, Heller H, Loughlin KR. Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J of Urol 1997; 157: 2071-2073.
• 6. Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC. Soft-tissue ‘rim’ sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 1997; 202: 709- 711.
• 7. Traubici J, Neitlich JD, Smith RC: Distinguishing pelvic phleboliths from distal ureteral stones on routine unenhanced helical CT. Is there a radiolucent center? AJR 1999; 172: 13-17.
• 8. Arac M, Celik H, Oner AY, Gultekin S, Gumus T, Kosar S. Distinguishing pelvic phleboliths from distal ureteral calculi: thin-slice CT findings. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 65-70.
• 9. Mindell HJ, Herschorn SD, Dash A, et al. In vitro CT comparisons of dissected phleboliths and retrieved ureteral calculi. Emergency Radiology 2001; 8: 332-334.
• 10. Fox LA, Fielding JR, Seltzer SE. Differentiation between pelvic ureteral calculi and phleboliths: spiral CT image analysis AJR 1997; 168: 68-71.
• 11. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Ureterolithiasis: value of the tail sign in differentiating phleboliths from ureteral calculi at nonenhanced helical CT 1999; 211: 619-62