Advertisement

International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 9–14 | Cite as

A novel use of attenuation value (Hounsfield unit) in non-contrast CT: diagnosis of pyonephrosis in obstructed systems

  • Ismail BasmaciEmail author
  • Ertugrul Sefik
Urology - Original Paper
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the predictive value of attenuation value (HU) in renal pelvis urine for detecting renal pelvis urine culture (RPUC) positivity in obstructed urinary systems.

Methods

The study group consisted of patients who had nephrostomy insertion performed because of obstructed system and suspicion of pyonephrosis and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) patients who had obstructed calculi. Group 1 consisted of RPUC positive 28 patients during nephrostomy insertion or needle access in PCNL and group 2 consisted of 23 patients with negative RPUC. RPUC results and non-contrast computed tomography measurements [Hounsfield unit (HU)] were compared between group 1 and group 2. A cut-off value was determined for HU. All patients were grouped according to whether they were above or below this value.

Results

The median HU calculated from the renal pelvis was − 8.5 (range − 29/− 1) and 10 (range− 4/+ 17) (p < 0.001) in group 1 and group 2, respectively. The cut-off value of HU that predicted positive RPUC was 0. Sensitivity and specificity of HU when considering this cut-off value were 100% and 96%, respectively (p < 0.001). Whereas RPUC positivity was found in 96.6% (28/29) of patients with HU < 0, there were no patients with HU > 0 where RPUC positivity was detected (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In this cohort, we found that HU of the urine in the renal pelvis can be used to predict RPUC positivity.

Keywords

Pyonephrosis Urinary tract obstruction Urine culture Computed tomography Attenuation value (Hounsfield unit) 

Notes

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author Basmaci I declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Sefik E declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Reyner K, Heffner AC, Karvetski CH (2016) Urinary obstruction is an important complicating factor in patients with septic shock due to urinary infection. Am J Emerg Med 34:694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wagenlehner FM, Pilatz A, Weidner W (2011) Urosepsis—from the view of the urologist. Int J Antimicrob Agents 38:51–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffmann H, Schmoldt S, Trülzsch K, Stumpf A, Bengsch S, Blankenstein T et al (2005) A Nosocomial urosepsis caused by Enterobacter kobei with aberrant phenotype. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 53:143–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Serniak PS, Denisov VK, Guba GB, Zakharov VV, Chernobrivtsev PA, Berko EM et al (1990) The diagnosis of urosepsis. Urol Nefrol 4:9–13Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brun-Buisson C (2000) The epidemiology of the systemic inflammatory response. Intensive Care Med 26:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brun-Buisson C, Doyon F, Carlet J (1996) Bacteremia and severe sepsis in adults: a multicenter prospective survey in ICUs and wards of 24 hospitals. French Bacteremia-Sepsis Study Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 154:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rangel-Frausto MS, Pittet D, Costigan M, Hwang T, Davis CS, Wenzel RP et al (1995) The natural history of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). A prospective study. JAMA 273:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sands KE, Bates DW, Lanken PN, Graman PS, Hibberd PL, Kahn KL et al (1997) Academic Medical Center Consortium Sepsis Project Working Group. Epidemiology of sepsis syndrome in 8 academic medical centers. JAMA 278:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McDougall EM, Liatsikos EN, Dinlenc CZ, Smith AD (2002) Percutaneous approaches to the upper urinary tract. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ (eds) Campbell’sUrology, 8th edn. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 3327–3452Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Basmaci I, Bozkurt IH, Sefik E, Celik S, Yarimoglu S, Degirmenci T (2018) A novel use of attenuation value (Hounsfield unit) in non-contrast CT: diagnosis of urinary tract infection. Int Urol Nephrol 50:1557–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcia LS, Isenberg HD (2010) Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook, 3rd edn. ASM Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan DM, Rosenfield AT (1997) Smith RC Advances in the imaging of renal infection: helical CT and modern coordinated imaging. Infect Dis Clin North Am 11:681–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fultz PJ, Hampton WR (1993) Totterman SM Computed tomography of pyonephrosis. Abdom Imaging 18:82–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Ernst RD, Goldman SM, Raval B, Fishman EK (1997) Renal inflammatory disease: the current role of CT. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 38:369–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hounsfield GN (1980) Nobel lecture, 8 December 1979. Computed medical imaging. J Radiol 61:459–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeb I, Li D, Nasir K, Katz R, Larijani VN, Budoff MJ (2012) Computed tomography scans in the evaluation of fatty liver disease in a population based study: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Acad Radiol 19:811–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pickhardt PJ, Pooler BD, Lauder T, del Rio AM, Bruce RJ, Binkley N (2013) Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using abdominal computed tomography scans obtained for other indications. Ann Intern Med 158:588–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruni SG, Patafio FM, Dufton JA, Nolan RL (2013) Islam O The assessment of anemia from attenuation values of cranial venous drainage on unenhanced computed tomography of the head. Can Assoc Radiol J 64:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S, Hupertan V, Fernandez P, Hermieu JF et al (2012) A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients’ selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study. BJU Int 110:438–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mizumura N, Okumura S, Toyoda S, Imagawa A, Ogawa M, Kawasaki M (2016) Non-traumatic bladder rupture showing less than 10 Hounsfield units of ascites. Acute Med Surg 4:184–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yuruk E, Tuken M, Sulejman S, Colakerol A, Serefoglu EC, Sarica K (2017) Computerized tomography attenuation values can be used to differentiate hydronephrosis from pyonephrosis. World J Urol 35:437–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yuh BI, Cohan RH (1999) Different phases of renal enhancement: role in detecting and characterizing renal masses during helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:747–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyHSU Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research HospitalIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations