Skip to main content
Log in

Investigations for recognizing urinary stone

  • Symposium Paper
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was done to identify the value of the commonly performed investigations available for identifying urinary stone disease, namely X-ray of the kidney, ureter and bladder (KUB) regions and ultrasound scan (USS) to recognize stones in patients suspected to have the disease. Two hundred patients who attended the stone clinic with symptoms suggestive of urinary stone disease and had either stone retrieved or have been followed up for minimum of 6 months were interviewed. The final opinion on stone disease was made after follow-up to assess the efficacy of the initial opinion based on the plain X-ray KUB or USS. The patients were classified as proved stone patients only after retrieval of stones. The efficacy of the initial screening investigation was assessed to calculate the specificity and sensitivity of the two modalities of investigation. Of the 200 patients studied, all had plain X-ray KUB. Only 166 patients had USS for recognizing stones in the urinary tract; 74 patients showed positive evidence of stones either by X-ray or USS. The findings of the two modalities of investigation are given below. Number of X-rays done, 200; number positive, 24; proved positive, 24 (stone retrieved); proved negative, 0; number negative, 176; proved positive, 32 (stone retrieved); proved negative, 144; number of USS done, 166; number positive, 120; proved positive, 50 (stone retrieved); proved negative, 70; number negative, 46; proved positive, 14 (stone retrieved); proved negative, 32. USS showed back presence effects in 62 patients. Of these, 12% showed stones in the ureter, whereas the rest did not show evidence of stones. Those selected as positive stones finally had either passed stones or had PCNL, URS, cystolithotripsy or open surgery or were put on high-dose chemotherapy. Forty-six patients who had no ROS in KUB and no stones in USS passed stones subsequently. It is concluded that the plain both X-ray KUB and USS should be performed in patients with suspected stone disease for identifying stone disease and also to exclude other pathology which may produce similar urinary symptoms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, Dalrymple N, Smith RC (1997) Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 204:27–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chu G, Rosenfield AT, Anderson K, Scout L, Smith RC (1999) Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. Am J Roentgenol 173:417–423

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE, Denstedt JD, Kahn R, Assimos DG, Nakada SY (1998) Lower-pole calyceal clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 12:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, Ozkaynak C, Karaali K, Kabaalioglu A, Luleci E (1998) Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol 8:212–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang LJ, Ng CJ, Chen JC, Chin TF, Wong YC (2004) Diagnosis of acute flank pain caused by ureteral stones: value of combined direct and indirect signs on IVU and unenhanced helical CT. Eur Radiol 14:1634–1640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pepe P, Motta L, Pennisi M, Aragona F (2005) Functional evaluation of the urinary tract by color-Doppler ultrasonography (CDU) in 100 patients with renal colic. Eur J Radiol 53:131–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kartal M, Eray O, Erdogru T, Yilmaz S (2006) Prospective validation of a current algorithm including bedside US performed by emergency physicians for patients with acute flank pain suspected for renal colic. Emerg Med J 23:341–344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Maier E, Neuwirt H, Neururer R, Pallwein L, Gradl J, Bartsch G, Strasser H, Frauscher F (2007) Value of 3-dimensional transrectal/transvaginal sonography in diagnosis of distal ureteral calculi. J Ultrasound Med 26:19–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoon DY, Bae SH, Choi CS (2000) Transrectal ultrasonography of distal ureteral calculi: comparison with intravenous urography. J Ultrasound Med 19:271–275

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yang JM, Yang SH, Huang WC (2005) Transvaginal sonography in the assessment of distal ureteral calculi. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:658–662

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Y. M. Fazil Marickar.

Additional information

11th international symposium on urolithiasis, Nice, France, 2–5 September 2008 Urological Research (2008) 36:157–232. doi:10.1007/s00240-008-0145-5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x263655772684210/fulltext.pdf.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Varma, G., Nair, N., Salim, A. et al. Investigations for recognizing urinary stone. Urol Res 37, 349–352 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0219-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0219-z

Keywords

Navigation