Urolithiasis: How accurate are plain radiographs?

Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 131-134

  Chan, V O ^a   Buckley, O ^a   Persaud, T ^a   Torreggiani, W C ^a  

^a ADELAIDE AND MEATH HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; Renal calculus; Urolithiasis

Indexed keywords

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY COLIC; LABORATORY TEST; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEPHROLITHIASIS; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; UROLITHIASIS; X RAY FILM;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COLIC; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; UROGRAPHY; UROLITHIASIS;

EID: 46749159215     PISSN: 08465371     EISSN: 08465371     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Swain J. The effect of roentgen rays on calculi. Bristol Med Chir J. 1897;15:1-18.
2. Thornbury JR, Parker TW. Ureteral calculi. Semin Roentgenol. 1982;17:133-139.
3. Twinem FP. Some radiographic aspects of urinary calculi. Am J Surg. 1932;17:389-394.
4. Ravich A. Critical study of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 1933;29:171-195.
5. Herring LC. Observations on the analysis of ten thousand urinary calculi. J Urol. 1962;88:545-562.
6. Roth CS, Bowyer BA, Berquist TH. Utility of the plain abdominal radiograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med. 1985;14:311-315.
7. Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal colic: utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:1589-1592.
8. Niall O, Russel J, MacGregor R, et al. A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998;161:534-537.
9. Boulay I, Holtz P, Foley WD, et al. Ureteral calculi: diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients. AJR. 1999;172:1485-1490.
10. Homer JA, Davies-Payne DL, Peddinti BS. Randomized prospective comparison of non-contrast enhanced helical computed tomography and intravenous urography in the diagnosis of acute ureteric colic. Australas Radiol. 2001;45:285-290.
11. Pfister SA, Deckart A, Laschke S, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:2513-2520.
12. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995;194:789-794.
13. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, et al. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR. 1996;166:97-101.
14. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, et al. Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol. 1997;157:2071-2073.
15. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, et al. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998;160:679-684.
16. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998;159:735-740.
17. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, et al. Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:212-217.
18. Katz DS, Hines J, Rausch DR, et al. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected renal colic. AJR. 1999;173:425-430.
19. Dalla Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F. Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:4-17.
20. Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, et al. Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30:44-50.
21. Knöpfle E, Hamm M, Wartenberg S, et al. [CT in ureterolithiasis with a radiation dose equal to intravenous urography: results in 209 patient]. Rofo. 2003;175:1667-1672. German.
22. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, et al. Plain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol. 2000;164:308-310.
23. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, et al. Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997;204:27-31.
24. Begun FP, Foley WD, Peterson A, et al. Patient evaluation: laboratory and imaging studies. Urol Clin North Am. 1997;24:97-116.
25. Shokeir AA. Renal colic: new concepts related to pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12:263-269.
26. Sommer FG, Jeffrey RB, Rubin GD, et al. Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR. 1995;165:509-513.
27. Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, et al. Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:873-876.
28. Rimondini A, Pozzi-Mucelli R, de Denaro M, et al. Evaluation of image quality and dose in renal colic: comparison of different spiral-CT protocols. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1140-1146.