1
|
Seizilles de Mazancourt E, Jamali N, de Sallmard G, de Bayser H, Matillon X, Abid N. Evaluation of a urinary filtration device for kidney stone retrieval: Pi-Box®. THE FRENCH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY 2024; 34:102700. [PMID: 39038655 DOI: 10.1016/j.fjurol.2024.102700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2024] [Revised: 07/15/2024] [Accepted: 07/17/2024] [Indexed: 07/24/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is an unmet need to offer a proper urinary straining device for patients in whom spontaneous expulsion of stones is expected. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacity, duration and ease of use of a new filtration device: the Pi-Box®. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was a single-institution, non-randomized open-label study. Consecutive male patients with at least one stone that was susceptible of spontaneous passage, or after shockwave lithotripsy were included. The first 30 consecutive patients (Group 1) used the usual recommended techniques, and the 30 following consecutive patients (Group 2) were given the Pi-Box®. The patients completed a questionnaire when seen at 1-month follow-up. RESULTS Sixty men were included between January 2023 and May 2023. Thirteen (43%) patients retrieved a stone in each group (P=1). Filtration was performed for a median of 5 days in Group 1 and 10 days in Group 2 (P=0.03). Fourteen (46%) patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their filtration technique without the device versus 18 (60%) with the Pi-Box® (P=0.3). Eighteen (60%) and 21 patients (70%) would recommend their straining technique to a relative in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P=0.42). CONCLUSIONS The number of straining days was twice longer with the Pi-Box® device and is in favor of a better observance. The device did not increase the number of stones retrieved by urine filtration, which was high in this pilot study and may have been due to a participation bias. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 2B.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nora Jamali
- Department of Urology and Transplant Surgery, Edouard-Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - Geoffroy de Sallmard
- Department of Urology and Transplant Surgery, Edouard-Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - Hubert de Bayser
- Department of Urology and Transplant Surgery, Edouard-Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - Xavier Matillon
- Department of Urology and Transplant Surgery, Edouard-Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - Nadia Abid
- Department of Urology and Transplant Surgery, Edouard-Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Steuwe A, Valentin B, Bethge OT, Ljimani A, Niegisch G, Antoch G, Aissa J. Influence of a Deep Learning Noise Reduction on the CT Values, Image Noise and Characterization of Kidney and Ureter Stones. Diagnostics (Basel) 2022; 12:diagnostics12071627. [PMID: 35885532 PMCID: PMC9317055 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2022] [Revised: 06/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Deep-learning (DL) noise reduction techniques in computed tomography (CT) are expected to reduce the image noise while maintaining the clinically relevant information in reduced dose acquisitions. This study aimed to assess the size, attenuation, and objective image quality of reno-ureteric stones denoised using DL-software in comparison to traditionally reconstructed low-dose abdominal CT-images and evaluated its clinical impact. In this institutional review-board-approved retrospective study, 45 patients with renal and/or ureteral stones were included. All patients had undergone abdominal CT between August 2019 and October 2019. CT-images were reconstructed using the following three methods: filtered back-projection, iterative reconstruction, and PixelShine (DL-software) with both sharp and soft kernels. Stone size, CT attenuation, and objective image quality (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)) were evaluated and compared using Bonferroni-corrected Friedman tests. Objective image quality was measured in six regions-of-interest. Stone size ranged between 4.4 × 3.1−4.4 × 3.2 mm (sharp kernel) and 5.1 × 3.8−5.6 × 4.2 mm (soft kernel). Mean attenuation ranged between 704−717 Hounsfield Units (HU) (soft kernel) and 915−1047 HU (sharp kernel). Differences in measured stone sizes were ≤1.3 mm. DL-processed images resulted in significantly higher CNR and SNR values (p < 0.001) by decreasing image noise significantly (p < 0.001). DL-software significantly improved objective image quality while maintaining both correct stone size and CT-attenuation values. Therefore, the clinical impact of stone assessment in denoised image data sets remains unchanged. Through the relevant noise suppression, the software additionally offers the potential to further reduce radiation exposure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Steuwe
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany; (B.V.); (O.T.B.); (A.L.); (G.A.); (J.A.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +49-(0)-211-81-18897
| | - Birte Valentin
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany; (B.V.); (O.T.B.); (A.L.); (G.A.); (J.A.)
| | - Oliver T. Bethge
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany; (B.V.); (O.T.B.); (A.L.); (G.A.); (J.A.)
| | - Alexandra Ljimani
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany; (B.V.); (O.T.B.); (A.L.); (G.A.); (J.A.)
| | - Günter Niegisch
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany;
| | - Gerald Antoch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany; (B.V.); (O.T.B.); (A.L.); (G.A.); (J.A.)
| | - Joel Aissa
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany; (B.V.); (O.T.B.); (A.L.); (G.A.); (J.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Pourvaziri A, Parakh A, Cao J, Locascio J, Eisner B, Sahani D, Kambadakone A. Comparison of Four Dual-Energy CT Scanner Technologies for Determining Renal Stone Composition: A Phantom Approach. Radiology 2022; 304:580-589. [PMID: 35638928 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.210822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Background Studies have investigated the value of various dual-energy CT (DECT) technologies for determining renal stone composition. However, sparse multivendor comparison data exist. Purpose To compare the performance of four DECT technologies in determining renal stone composition at standard- and low-dose acquisitions. Materials and Methods This was an in vitro phantom study. Seventy-one urinary stones (size: 2.7-14.1 mm) of known chemical composition (51 calcium, four struvite, four cystine, and 12 urate) were placed in a custom-made cylindrical phantom. Consecutive scans with manufacturer-recommended protocols and dose-optimized institutional protocols (up to 80% reduction in volumetric CT dose index) were obtained with rapid kilovolt peak switching DECT (rsDECT) (n = 2), dual-source DECT (n = 2), twin-beam DECT (tbDECT) (n = 1), and dual-layer detector-based CT (dlDECT) (n = 1) scanners. The image data sets were analyzed using effective atomic number and dual-energy ratio indexes of maximally available and comparable spectra. The performance of each combination of scanner technology, method, and acquisition was assessed. Logistic regression models were used to calculate the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results After image analysis, all scanners except tbDECT had an AUC greater than 0.95 in at least one acquisition in distinguishing urate from other stones. All DECT techniques were able to help differentiate calcium oxalate monohydrate stones with moderate accuracy (AUC: 0.70-0.83), and brushite was differentiated from urate with AUC greater than 0.99. There was no correlation between performance and acquisition with dose-optimized and/or vendor-recommended settings. Conclusion All four dual-energy CT (DECT) technologies enabled accurate determination of stone composition at standard- and low-dose acquisitions; however, performance varied based on the scanner parameters, DECT technique, and stone type. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Ringl and Apfaltrer in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Pourvaziri
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| | - Anushri Parakh
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| | - Jinjin Cao
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| | - Joseph Locascio
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| | - Brian Eisner
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| | - Dushyant Sahani
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| | - Avinash Kambadakone
- From the Department of Radiology (A. Pourvaziri, J.C., A.K.), Harvard Catalyst Biostatistics Consulting Unit (J.L.), and Department of Urology (D.S.), Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114; Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass (A. Parakh); and Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash (B.E.)
| |
Collapse
|