Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can the CT planning image determine whether a kidney stone is radiopaque on a plain KUB?

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

Abstract

Almost all kidney stones are CT positive. Before a CT scan can be done a CT planning image (CTI) is generated in order to select the exact scanning area. The CTI looks approximately like a normal kidney–ureter–bladder abdominal radiography (KUB) but with reduced quality. It has been used as a guide, assuming that if the kidney stone could be seen on the CTI the kidney stone also would be visible on a conventional plain KUB (radiopaque). From the perspective of diagnosis and treatment as well as follow-up it is of importance to know whether a kidney stone is radiopaque or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the CTI actually can predict radiopacity. CT scans and corresponding KUB’s were analysed in 76 consecutive kidney stone patients. The CT scan and the KUB were performed on the same day. All patients were examined with the same CT scanner (64 slice GE light speed VCT). Three radiologists evaluated the images in plenum. The following was recorded regarding the kidney stones: X-ray positive (radiopaque on KUB), CTI positive (radiopaque on CTI), location (a kidney, b upper two-thirds of ureter and c lower one-thirds of ureter including the bladder), size and Hounsfield units (HU). We also measured the patient’s ‘anterior–posterior depth’ (APD) at the kidney stone level in axial plane, and whether the stone was homogeneous/inhomogeneous. 54 of the 76 patients (71%) had radiopaque stones on KUB. 43 (57%) of these also could be seen on the CTI, resulting in a positive predicting value (PPV) of 100% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 67%. In the 54 KUB positive kidney stones the mean kidney stone diameter was 7 mm (2–30 mm), mean HU’s 1,007 (294–1,782 HU), location: a:32, b:9 and c:13 patients. APD was mean 23.6 cm (13–39 cm). In the KUB positive and CTI negative kidney stones (11 patients) mean kidney stone diameter was 4 mm (2–9 mm), mean HU’s 742 (294–1,253 HU), location: a:32, b:9 and c:13 patients. APD in this group was mean 26.1 cm (13–37 cm). If the kidney stone can be seen on the CTI it is also visible on a plain KUB (PPV 100%). The CTI do, however, underestimate the radiopacity of a stone on a plain KUB (NPV 67%). Kidney stone HU > 742, stone location in the kidney and proximal ureter and APD < 26 cm independently predict agreement between CTI and KUB with regard to radiopacity.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

NCHCT:

Non-contrast helical CT

KUB:

Kidney–ureter–bladder abdominal radiography

CTI:

CT planning image

APD:

Patient’s anterior–posterior depth

HU:

Hounsfield units

PACS:

Picture archiving communication system

mSv:

Milli sieverts

mA:

Milli ampere

References

  1. Smith RC, Coll DM (2000) Helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of ureteric colic. BJU Int 86(Suppl):133–141

    Google Scholar 

  2. Norlin A, Lindell B, Granberg PO (1976) Urolithiasis. A study of its frequency. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:150–153

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson CM, Wilson DM, O’Fallon WM, Malek RS, Kurland LT (1979) Renal stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester, Minnesota. Kidney Int 16(5):624–631

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, Bove P, Covey a M, Rosenfield a T et al (1998) The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol 159(3):735–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, Jarrett TW (2000) Plain abdominal X-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 164(2):308–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Assi Z, Platt JF, Francis IR, Cohan RH, Korobkin M (2000) Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(2):333–337

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ege G, Akman H, Kuzucu K, Yildiz S (2004) Can computed tomography scout radiography replace plain film in the evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic? Acta Radiol 45(4):469–473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnston R, Lin A, Du J, Mark S (2009) Comparison of kidney-ureter-bladder abdominal radiography and computed tomography scout films for identifying renal calculi. BJU Int 104(5):670–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Fineberg NS, Monga a G, Chua GT, Lingeman JE et al (2000) Calcium stone fragility is predicted by helical CT attenuation values. J Endourol 14(6):471–474

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zilberman DE, Ferrandino MN, Preminger GM, Paulson EK, Lipkin ME, Boll DT (2010) In vivo determination of urinary stone composition using dual energy computerized tomography with advanced post-acquisition processing. J Urol 184(6):2354–2359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Radiological Society of North America. Safety in medical imaging procedures. available at: http://www.radiologyinfo.org

  13. Berrington de González A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F et al (2009) Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169(22):2071–2077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urological Research Center, Department of Urology, Fredericia Hospital, Part of Hospital Littlebelt and Institute of Regional Health Services Research, University of Southern Denmark, Dronningsgade 97, 7000, Fredericia, Denmark

    Ole Graumann, Susanne S. Osther & Palle J. S. Osther

  2. Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Sdr. Boulevard 29, 5000, Odense, Denmark

    Diana Spasojevic

Authors
  1. Ole Graumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susanne S. Osther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Diana Spasojevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Palle J. S. Osther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ole Graumann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graumann, O., Osther, S.S., Spasojevic, D. et al. Can the CT planning image determine whether a kidney stone is radiopaque on a plain KUB?. Urol Res 40, 333–337 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0411-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-011-0411-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation