Antegrade pyelography versus unenhanced multidetector CT in the assessment of urinary-tract stones after percutaneous nephrostomy insertion: A prospective blinded study

Sarel Halachmi, Eduard Ghersin, Yeoshua Ginesin, Shimon Meretyk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Purpose: In patients with a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) inserted for symptomatic stone disease, antegrade pyelography is an accepted modality to assess the collecting system and residual stone status prior to PCN removal. Recently, unenhanced multidetector CT (UMDCT) has shown its superiority for the assessment of urinary-tract stones. Comparison of UMDCT with antegrade pyelography has never been done; hence, our aim was to compare the two methods for the assessment of urinary stones in patients with a PCN. Patients and Methods: Between July 2004 and July 2005, we prospectively imaged 49 consecutive patients with known urinary-tract stone disease who had PCN (27 men and 22 women; average age 57 ± 20 years; range 4-88 years). All patients underwent UMDCT and antegrade pyelography within 24 hours. Both examinations were prospectively and blindly evaluated by two attending radiologists for the presence, location, and size of urinary-tract stones. Results: According to the findings of both imaging modalities, 18 patients were stone free, and 31 patients had urinary stones. In 20 of the latter 31 patients (64.5%), the urinary stones were diagnosed only by UMDCT. Antegrade pyelography missed renal as well as ureteral stones, with a significant mean size (5.1 X 6.2 mm, and 6 X 5.3 mm, respectively). Antegrade pyelography missed radiolucent (8/20) as well as radiopaque (12/20) stones. In 11 of the 31 patients (35.5%), urinary stones were diagnosed by both UMDCT and antegrade pyelography. The average size of these renal stones was 6 X 11 mm, and the mean ureteral stone size was 11 X 13 mm. In 64% (7/11), the stones were radiolucent and in 36% (4/11) radiopaque. There was no patient in whom urinary stones were diagnosed by antegrade pyelography but missed by UMDCT. Conclusions: Unenhanced multidetector CT is more accurate than antegrade pyelography via a PCN for the assessment of urinary-tract stones, with the advantage of reducing the risks of contrast injection side effects.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)473-477
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Endourology
Volume21
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Nephrostomy
Urinary Calculi
Urography
Prospective Studies
Kidney
Urologic Diseases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Antegrade pyelography versus unenhanced multidetector CT in the assessment of urinary-tract stones after percutaneous nephrostomy insertion : A prospective blinded study. / Halachmi, Sarel; Ghersin, Eduard; Ginesin, Yeoshua; Meretyk, Shimon.

In: Journal of Endourology, Vol. 21, No. 5, 01.05.2007, p. 473-477.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ba39e2260ca64aa292c9d7c3160014d2,
title = "Antegrade pyelography versus unenhanced multidetector CT in the assessment of urinary-tract stones after percutaneous nephrostomy insertion: A prospective blinded study",
abstract = "Background and Purpose: In patients with a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) inserted for symptomatic stone disease, antegrade pyelography is an accepted modality to assess the collecting system and residual stone status prior to PCN removal. Recently, unenhanced multidetector CT (UMDCT) has shown its superiority for the assessment of urinary-tract stones. Comparison of UMDCT with antegrade pyelography has never been done; hence, our aim was to compare the two methods for the assessment of urinary stones in patients with a PCN. Patients and Methods: Between July 2004 and July 2005, we prospectively imaged 49 consecutive patients with known urinary-tract stone disease who had PCN (27 men and 22 women; average age 57 ± 20 years; range 4-88 years). All patients underwent UMDCT and antegrade pyelography within 24 hours. Both examinations were prospectively and blindly evaluated by two attending radiologists for the presence, location, and size of urinary-tract stones. Results: According to the findings of both imaging modalities, 18 patients were stone free, and 31 patients had urinary stones. In 20 of the latter 31 patients (64.5{\%}), the urinary stones were diagnosed only by UMDCT. Antegrade pyelography missed renal as well as ureteral stones, with a significant mean size (5.1 X 6.2 mm, and 6 X 5.3 mm, respectively). Antegrade pyelography missed radiolucent (8/20) as well as radiopaque (12/20) stones. In 11 of the 31 patients (35.5{\%}), urinary stones were diagnosed by both UMDCT and antegrade pyelography. The average size of these renal stones was 6 X 11 mm, and the mean ureteral stone size was 11 X 13 mm. In 64{\%} (7/11), the stones were radiolucent and in 36{\%} (4/11) radiopaque. There was no patient in whom urinary stones were diagnosed by antegrade pyelography but missed by UMDCT. Conclusions: Unenhanced multidetector CT is more accurate than antegrade pyelography via a PCN for the assessment of urinary-tract stones, with the advantage of reducing the risks of contrast injection side effects.",
author = "Sarel Halachmi and Eduard Ghersin and Yeoshua Ginesin and Shimon Meretyk",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/end.2006.0364",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "473--477",
journal = "Journal of Endourology",
issn = "0892-7790",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antegrade pyelography versus unenhanced multidetector CT in the assessment of urinary-tract stones after percutaneous nephrostomy insertion

T2 - A prospective blinded study

AU - Halachmi, Sarel

AU - Ghersin, Eduard

AU - Ginesin, Yeoshua

AU - Meretyk, Shimon

PY - 2007/5/1

Y1 - 2007/5/1

N2 - Background and Purpose: In patients with a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) inserted for symptomatic stone disease, antegrade pyelography is an accepted modality to assess the collecting system and residual stone status prior to PCN removal. Recently, unenhanced multidetector CT (UMDCT) has shown its superiority for the assessment of urinary-tract stones. Comparison of UMDCT with antegrade pyelography has never been done; hence, our aim was to compare the two methods for the assessment of urinary stones in patients with a PCN. Patients and Methods: Between July 2004 and July 2005, we prospectively imaged 49 consecutive patients with known urinary-tract stone disease who had PCN (27 men and 22 women; average age 57 ± 20 years; range 4-88 years). All patients underwent UMDCT and antegrade pyelography within 24 hours. Both examinations were prospectively and blindly evaluated by two attending radiologists for the presence, location, and size of urinary-tract stones. Results: According to the findings of both imaging modalities, 18 patients were stone free, and 31 patients had urinary stones. In 20 of the latter 31 patients (64.5%), the urinary stones were diagnosed only by UMDCT. Antegrade pyelography missed renal as well as ureteral stones, with a significant mean size (5.1 X 6.2 mm, and 6 X 5.3 mm, respectively). Antegrade pyelography missed radiolucent (8/20) as well as radiopaque (12/20) stones. In 11 of the 31 patients (35.5%), urinary stones were diagnosed by both UMDCT and antegrade pyelography. The average size of these renal stones was 6 X 11 mm, and the mean ureteral stone size was 11 X 13 mm. In 64% (7/11), the stones were radiolucent and in 36% (4/11) radiopaque. There was no patient in whom urinary stones were diagnosed by antegrade pyelography but missed by UMDCT. Conclusions: Unenhanced multidetector CT is more accurate than antegrade pyelography via a PCN for the assessment of urinary-tract stones, with the advantage of reducing the risks of contrast injection side effects.

AB - Background and Purpose: In patients with a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) inserted for symptomatic stone disease, antegrade pyelography is an accepted modality to assess the collecting system and residual stone status prior to PCN removal. Recently, unenhanced multidetector CT (UMDCT) has shown its superiority for the assessment of urinary-tract stones. Comparison of UMDCT with antegrade pyelography has never been done; hence, our aim was to compare the two methods for the assessment of urinary stones in patients with a PCN. Patients and Methods: Between July 2004 and July 2005, we prospectively imaged 49 consecutive patients with known urinary-tract stone disease who had PCN (27 men and 22 women; average age 57 ± 20 years; range 4-88 years). All patients underwent UMDCT and antegrade pyelography within 24 hours. Both examinations were prospectively and blindly evaluated by two attending radiologists for the presence, location, and size of urinary-tract stones. Results: According to the findings of both imaging modalities, 18 patients were stone free, and 31 patients had urinary stones. In 20 of the latter 31 patients (64.5%), the urinary stones were diagnosed only by UMDCT. Antegrade pyelography missed renal as well as ureteral stones, with a significant mean size (5.1 X 6.2 mm, and 6 X 5.3 mm, respectively). Antegrade pyelography missed radiolucent (8/20) as well as radiopaque (12/20) stones. In 11 of the 31 patients (35.5%), urinary stones were diagnosed by both UMDCT and antegrade pyelography. The average size of these renal stones was 6 X 11 mm, and the mean ureteral stone size was 11 X 13 mm. In 64% (7/11), the stones were radiolucent and in 36% (4/11) radiopaque. There was no patient in whom urinary stones were diagnosed by antegrade pyelography but missed by UMDCT. Conclusions: Unenhanced multidetector CT is more accurate than antegrade pyelography via a PCN for the assessment of urinary-tract stones, with the advantage of reducing the risks of contrast injection side effects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34249877927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34249877927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/end.2006.0364

DO - 10.1089/end.2006.0364

M3 - Article

C2 - 17523898

AN - SCOPUS:34249877927

VL - 21

SP - 473

EP - 477

JO - Journal of Endourology

JF - Journal of Endourology

SN - 0892-7790

IS - 5

ER -