ACR appropriateness criteria® acute onset flank pain-suspicion of stone disease

Ultrasound Quarterly

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 227-233

  Coursey, Courtney A ^a   Casalino, David D ^b   Remer, Erick M ^c   Arellano, Ronald S ^d   Bishoff, Jay T ^e   Dighe, Manjiri ^f   Fulgham, Pat ^g   Goldfarb, Stanley ^h   Israel, Gary M ⁱ   Lazarus, Elizabeth ^j   Leyendecker, John R ^k   Majd, Massoud ^l   Nikolaidis, Paul ^b   Papanicolaou, Nicholas ^m   Prasad, Srinivasa ⁿ   Ramchandani, Parvati ^m   Sheth, Sheila ^o   Vikram, Raghunandan ⁿ  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e Intermountain Urological Institute   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^g PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL OF DALLAS   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

ⁱ YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^l CHILDREN'S NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^m HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^o JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Appropriateness Criteria; comparative studies; computed tomography; nephroureterolithiasis; ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; APPENDICITIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DOPPLER ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; FLANK PAIN; FOLLOW UP; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; HYDRONEPHROSIS; HYDROURETER; INTRAVENOUS UROGRAPHY; IONIZING RADIATION; KIDNEY TOMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NEPHROLITHIASIS; NONCONTRAST COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREGNANT WOMAN; PRENATAL EXPOSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; STONE FORMATION; URETER STONE; UROLITHIASIS; X RAY ANALYSIS; X RAY FILM;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FLANK PAIN; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; URINARY CALCULI;

EID: 84865796052     PISSN: 08948771     EISSN: 15360253     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RUQ.0b013e3182625974     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Ha M, MacDonald RD. Impact of CT scan in patients with first episode of suspected nephrolithiasis. J Emerg Med. 2004;27(3):225-231.
2. Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG, et al. 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol. 2007;178(6):2418-2434.
3. Roth CS, Bowyer BA, Berquist TH. Utility of the plain abdominal radiograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med. 1985;14(4):311-315.
4. Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(8):1589-1592.
5. 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(1):27-31.
6. Ripolles T, Agramunt M, Errando J, et al. Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT. A prospective study in 66 patients. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(1):129-136.
7. Mermuys K, De Geeter F, Bacher K, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in the detection of urolithiasis: diagnostic performance and dosimetry compared with digital radiography with MDCT as the reference standard. AJR. 2010;195(1):161-167.
8. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995;194(3):789-794.
9. Abramson S, Walders N, Applegate KE, et al. Impact in the emergency department of unenhanced CT on diagnostic confidence and therapeutic efficacy in patients with suspected renal colic: a prospective survey. 2000 ARRS President's Award. American Roentgen Ray Society. AJR. 2000;175(6):1689-1695.
10. Boridy IC, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, et al. Acute ureterolithiasis: nonenhanced helical CT findings of perinephric edema for prediction of degree of ureteral obstruction. Radiology. 1999;213(3):663-667.
11. Katz DS, Lane MJ, Sommer FG. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: incidence of associated urinary tract findings. AJR. 1996;166(6):1319-1322.
12. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, et al. Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT. AJR. 1996;167(5):1109-1113.
13. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, et al. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR. 1996;166(1):97-101.
14. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N, et al. Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR. 1999;172(6):1491-1494.
15. Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC. Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR. 2002;178(1):101-103.
16. Nadler RB, Stern JA, Kimm S, et al. Coronal imaging to assess urinary tract stone size. J Urol. 2004;172(3):962-964.
17. Lin WC, Uppot RN, Li CS, et al. Value of automated coronal reformations from 64-section multidetector row computerized tomography in the diagnosis of urinary stone disease. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):907-911; discussion 911.
18. Metser U, Ghai S, Ong YY, et al. Assessment of urinary tract calculi with 64-MDCT: The axial versus coronal plane. AJR. 2009;192(6):1509-1513.
19. Memarsadeghi M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Prokop M, et al. Unenhanced MDCT in patients with suspected urinary stone disease: do coronal reformations improve diagnostic performance? AJR. 2007;189(2):W60-W64.
20. Bird VG, Gomez-Marin O, Leveillee RJ, et al. A comparison of unen-hanced helical computerized tomography findings and renal obstruction determined by furosemide 99m technetium mercaptoacetyltriglycine diuretic scintirenography for patients with acute renal colic. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1597-1603.
21. Boulay I, Holtz P, Foley WD, et al. Ureteral calculi: diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients. AJR. 1999;172(6):1485-1490.
22. Varanelli MJ, Coll DM, Levine JA, et al. Relationship between duration of pain and secondary signs of obstruction of the urinary tract on unenhanced helical CT. AJR. 2001;177(2):325-330.
23. Takahashi N, Kawashima A, Ernst RD, et al. Ureterolithiasis: can clinical outcome be predicted with unenhanced helical CT? Radiology. 1998;208(1):97-102.
24. Eikefjord E, Askildsen JE, Rorvik J. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of intravenous urography (IVU) and unenhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for initial investigation of suspected acute ureterolithiasis. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(2):222-229.
25. Hoppe H, Studer R, Kessler TM, et al. Alternate or additional findings to stone disease on unenhanced computerized tomography for acute flank pain can impact management. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1725-1730; discussion 1730.
26. 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(11):2513-2520.
27. Dalla Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F. Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(1):4-17.
28. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Boridy IC, et al. Unenhanced helical CT of ureterolithiasis: value of the tissue rim sign. AJR. 1997;168(4): 997-1000.
29. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004;230(3):619-628.
30. Heneghan JP, McGuire KA, Leder RA, et al. Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology. 2003;229(2):575-580.
31. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, et al. Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology. 2000;215(1):51-54.
32. Meagher T, Sukumar VP, Collingwood J, et al. Low dose computed tomography in suspected acute renal colic. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(11):873-876.
33. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, et al. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CTof patients with suspected renal colic. AJR. 2003;180(2): 305-311.
34. Poletti PA, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, et al. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR. 2007;188(4):927-933.
35. Mulkens TH, Daineffe S, De Wijngaert R, et al. Urinary stone disease: comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation. AJR. 2007;188(2):553-562.
36. White WM, Zite NB, Gash J, et al. Low-dose computed tomography for the evaluation of flank pain in the pregnant population. J Endourol. 2007;21(11):1255-1260.
37. Jin DH, Lamberton GR, Broome DR, et al. Effect of reduced radiation CT protocols on the detection of renal calculi. Radiology. 2010;255(1):100-107.
38. Ciaschini MW, Remer EM, Baker ME, et al. Urinary calculi: radiation dose reduction of 50% and 75% at CTYeffect on sensitivity. Radiology. 2009;251(1):105-111.
39. Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR. 2008;191(2):396-401.
40. Memarsadeghi M, Heinz-Peer G, Helbich TH, et al. Unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having urinary stone disease: effect of section width on diagnosis. Radiology. 2005;235(2):530-536.
41. Kambadakone AR, Eisner BH, Catalano OA, et al. New and evolving concepts in the imaging and management of urolithiasis: urologists' perspective. Radiographics. 2010;30(3): 603-623.
42. Grosjean R, Sauer B, Guerra RM, et al. Characterization of human renal stones with MDCT: advantage of dual energy and limitations due to respiratory motion. AJR. 2008;190(3):720-728.
43. Boll DT, Patil NA, Paulson EK, et al. Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone compositionYpilot study. Radiology. 2009;250(3):813-820.
44. Erwin BC, Carroll BA, Sommer FG. Renal colic: the role of ultrasound in initial evaluation. Radiology. 1984;152(1):147-150.
45. Hill MC, Rich JI, Mardiat JG, et al. Sonography vs. excretory urography in acute flank pain. AJR. 1985;144(6): 1235-1238.
46. Laing FC, Jeffrey RB Jr., Wing VW. Ultrasound versus excretory urography in evaluating acute flank pain. Radiology. 1985;154(3):613-616.
47. Svedstrom E, Alanen A, Nurmi M. Radiologic diagnosis of renal colic: the role of plain films, excretory urography and sonography. Eur J Radiol. 1990;11(3):180-183.
48. Platt JF, Rubin JM, Ellis JH. Acute renal obstruction: evaluation with intrarenal duplex Doppler and conventional US. Radiology. 1993;186(3):685-688.
49. Rodgers PM, Bates JA, Irving HC. Intrarenal Doppler ultrasound studies in normal and acutely obstructed kidneys. Br J Radiol. 1992;65(771):207-212.
50. Fowler KA, Locken JA, Duchesne JH, et al. US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology. 2002;222(1):109-113.
51. Ulusan S, Koc Z, Tokmak N. Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: comparison with CT. J Clin Ultrasound. 2007;35(5):256-261.
52. Dalla Palma L, Stacul F, Bazzocchi M, et al. Ultrasonography and plain film versus intravenous urography in ureteric colic. Clin Radiol. 1993;47(5):333-336.
53. McAleer SJ, Loughlin KR. Nephrolithiasis and pregnancy. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14(2):123-127.
54. Amis ES Jr, Cronan JJ, Pfister RC, et al. Ultrasonic inaccuracies in diagnosing renal obstruction. Urology. 1982;19(1):101-105.
55. Kamholtz RG, Cronan JJ, Dorfman GS. Obstruction and the minimally dilated renal collecting system: US evaluation. Radiology. 1989; 170(1 Pt 1):51-53.
56. Regan F, Bohlman ME, Khazan R, et al. MR urography using HASTE imaging in the assessment of ureteric obstruction. AJR. 1996;167(5):1115-1120.
57. Zielonko J, Studniarek M, Markuszewski M. MR urography of obstructive uropathy: diagnostic value of the method in selected clinical groups. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(4):802-809.
58. Roy C, Saussine C, LeBras Y, et al. Assessment of painful ureterohydronephrosis during pregnancy by MR urography. Eur Radiol. 1996;6(3):334-338.
59. Thoeny HC, Kessler TM, Simon-Zoula S, et al. Renal oxygenation changes during acute unilateral ureteral obstruction: assessment with blood oxygen level-dependent mr imagingYinitial experience. Radiology. 2008;247(3):754-761.
60. Thoeny HC, Binser T, Roth B, et al. Noninvasive assessment of acute ureteral obstruction with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: a prospective study. Radiology. 2009;252(3):721-728.
61. Sudah M, Vanninen R, Partanen K, et al. MR urography in evaluation of acute flank pain: T2-weighted sequences and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional FLASH compared with urography. Fast low-angle shot. AJR. 2001;176(1): 105-112.
62. Wieseler KM, Bhargava P, Kanal KM, et al. Imaging in pregnant patients: examination appropriateness. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):1215-1229; discussion 1230-1213.
63. Rasmussen PE, Nielsen FR. Hydronephrosis during pregnancy: a literature survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1988;27(3): 249-259.
64. Stothers L, Lee LM. Renal colic in pregnancy. J Urol. 1992;148(5):1383-1387.
65. Roy C, Saussine C, Jahn C, et al. Fast imaging MR assessment of ureterohydronephrosis during pregnancy. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995;13(6):767-772.
66. Shokeir AA, El-Diasty T, Eassa W, et al. Diagnosis of ureteral obstruction in patients with compromised renal function: the role of noninvasive imaging modalities. J Urol. 2004;171(6 Pt 1):2303-2306.
67. Jaffe TA, Miller CM, Merkle EM. Practice patterns in imaging of the pregnant patient with abdominal pain: a survey of academic centers. AJR. 2007;189(5):1128-1134.
68. Katz SI, Saluja S, Brink JA, et al. Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR. 2006;186(4):1120-1124.
69. Broder J, Bowen J, Lohr J, et al. Cumulative CT exposures in emergency department patients evaluated for suspected renal colic. J Emerg Med. 2007;33(2):161-168.
70. American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/qual-ity-safety/contrast-manual. aspx.
71. American Colllege of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria\: radiation dose assessment introduction. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/ quality-safety/app-criteria/RRLInformation.aspx. Accessed February 16, 2012.