Dual-energy CT kidney stone characterization-can diagnostic accuracy be achieved at low radiation dose?

[Imaging in nephroureterolithasis]

In the acute diagnostics of a suspected nephroureterolithiasis, ultrasonography should be the examination modality of choice. In cases of suspected urolithiasis, unclear flank pain with fever or in cases of a solitary kidney, a noncontrast computed tomography (CT) scan should always subsequently be performed. If the sonography findings are inconclusive in pregnant women a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination can be considered. If there are indications for urinary diversion, a retrograde imaging study should be performed as part of the urinary diversion. This or CT imaging is also suitable for preinterventional imaging before shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy or ureteroscopy. Postinterventional imaging is not always necessary and sonography is often sufficient. In a conservative treatment approach an abdominal plain X‑ray can be used for follow-up assessment.

Advancements in stone classification: unveiling the beauty of urolithiasis

PURPOSE

Urolithiasis has become increasingly prevalent, leading to higher disability-adjusted life years and deaths. Various stone classification systems have been developed to enhance the understanding of lithogenesis, aid urologists in treatment decisions, and predict recurrence risk. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of different stone classification criteria.

METHODS

Two authors conducted a review of literature on studies relating to the classification of urolithiasis. A narrative synthesis for analysis of the studies was used.

RESULTS

Stones can be categorized based on anatomical position, size, medical imaging features, risk of recurrence, etiology, composition, and morphoconstitutional analysis. The first three mentioned offer a straightforward approach to stone classification, directly influencing treatment recommendations. With the routine use of CT imaging before treatment, precise details like anatomical location, stone dimensions, and Hounsfield Units can be easily determined, aiding treatment planning. In contrast, classifying stones based on risk of recurrence and etiology is more complex due to dependencies on multiple variables, including stone composition and morphology. A classification system based on morphoconstitutional analysis, which combines morphological stone appearance and chemical composition, has demonstrated its value. It allows for the rapid identification of crystalline phase principles, the detection of crystalline conversion processes, the determination of etiopathogenesis, the recognition of lithogenic processes, the assessment of crystal formation speed, related recurrence rates, and guidance for selecting appropriate treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing that no single classification system can comprehensively cover all aspects, the integration of all classification approaches is essential for tailoring urolithiasis patient-specific management.

Assessment of Hounsfield Units and Factors Associated with Fragmentation of Renal Stones by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Computerized Tomography Study

The success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is influenced by various factors, including stone density, and is determined through computed tomography scans in terms of Hounsfield units (HU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective single-center study was conducted in the King Fahad Hospital. Sixty-seven adult patients with renal and ureteric stones were selected randomly and enrolled in the study. Their ages ranged from 20 to 69 years. The patients were examined with non-contrast enhancement (NCCT) to assess the HU of their stones and were consequently treated with ESWL.

RESULTS

Of the 67 patients, 37.3% had stones that were completely fragmented, while 62.7% had stones that were partially fragmented. The HU, location of the stone, multiplicity of the stone, and patient age were found to be significant factors contributing to stone fragility (p-values < 0.05). The HU data were found to have a positive significant linear correlation with serum calcium (r = 0.28, p-value = 0.036), while serum acid had a negative correlation (r = -0.55, p-value < 0.001). Thus, the probability of calcium-containing stone formation increases with increased HU. In contrast, uric acid stone formation likely develops with decreasing HU with serum uric acid. Renal stones in patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension were not completely fragmented compared to those without clinical history.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean HU, location of the stone, laterality, stone status, and the number of ESWL sessions are the most significant factors affecting stone fragility. CT attenuation values can predict the composition of stones from serum calcium and uric acid examinations. Hypertension and diabetes mellitus are risk factors for renal stone fragmentation.