Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The usefulness of the maximum Hounsfield units (HU) in predicting the shockwave lithotripsy outcome for ureteral stones and the proposal of novel indicators using the maximum HU

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computed tomography (CT) attenuation value of ureteral stones is one of the predictors of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) outcome. It is common to use the mean Hounsfield units (HU) to describe the CT attenuation value. However, an observer bias can occur when measuring the mean HU in the conventional method. On the other hand, our way to obtain only the maximum HU is simpler and less biased. We retrospectively evaluated 464 patients with ureteral stones who underwent SWL and compared predictive accuracy of various factors including maximum and mean HU. Results were determined after a single SWL. Predictors of SWL success were examined by the statistical analysis of successful and failed groups. 324 of the 464 patients who underwent SWL were stone-free after a single SWL. Significant differences were found in factors related to CT attenuation value and stone size. As a result of receiver operating characteristic analysis, it was found that maximum HU and mean HU, major diameter and volume have equivalent prediction accuracy, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that maximum HU and major diameter were included in independent predictors. We also examined the new original indicators using maximum HU and major diameter. Stone-resistant probability obtained from the logistic model and Maximum HU and Major diameter Index obtained by multiplying maximum HU by major diameter were useful for predicting SWL success, respectively. In conclusion, maximum HU and mean HU have equivalent predictive accuracy, and maximum HU is easier to measure and less biased than mean HU.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tran TY, McGillen K, Cone EB, Pareek G (2015) Triple D score is a reportable predictor of shockwave lithotripsy stone-free rates. J Endourol 29:226–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J et al (2008) Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computer tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 72(4):765–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Badran YA, Abdelaziz AS, Shehab MA et al (2016) Is scoring system of computed tomography based metric parameters can accurately predicts shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rates and aid in the development of treatment strategies? Urol Ann 8:197–202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Niwa N, Matsumoto K, Miyahara M et al (2017) Simple and practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary upper ureteral stone. World J Urol 35(9):1455–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA et al (2014) The success of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. AJU 12:155–161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yazici O, Tuncer M, Sahin C et al (2015) Shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stones: evaluation of patient and stone related predictive factors. Int Braz J Urol 41(4):676–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee JY, Kim JH, Kang DH et al (2016) Stone heterogeneity index as the standard deviation of Hounsfield units. A novel predictor for shock-wave lithotripsy outcomes in ureter calculi. Sci Rep. 6:23988. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23988

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iguchi T et al (2017) Variation coefficient of stone density: a novel predictor of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol 31(4):384–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tanaka M, Yokota E, Toyonaga Y et al (2013) Stone attenuation value and cross-sectional area on computed tomography predict the success of shock wave lithotripsy. KJU 54:454–459

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mullhaupt G, Engeler DS, Schmid HP, Abt D (2015) How do stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance in computed tomography influence the performance of shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stone disease? BMC Urol 15:72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ouzaid I, Al-qahtani S, Dominique S 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:E438–E442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Niewada EB, Dybowski B, Radziszewski P (2014) Predicting stone composition before treatment -can it really drive clinical decisions? Cent Euro J Urol 67(4):392–396

    Google Scholar 

  13. Khalifa BB, Naouar S, Gazzah W, Salem B, Kamel RE (2016) Predictive factors of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for urinary stones. Latunisie Medicale 94:397–400

    Google Scholar 

  14. Geng JH, Tu HP, Shih PMC et al (2015) Noncontrast computed tomography can predict the outcome of shockwave lithotripsy via accurate stone measurement and abdominal fat distribuition determination. KJMS 31:34–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ et al (2008) Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 103:524–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gupta NP, Ansari MS, Kesarvani P, Kapoor A, Mukhopadhyay S (2005) Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi. BJU Int 95:1285–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuroda S, Ito H, Sakamaki K et al (2018) A new prediction model for operative time of flexible ureteroscopy with lithotripsy for the treatment of renal stones. PLoS One 13(2):e0192597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Baron RL, Rohmann CA, Lee SP, Shuman WP, Teefey SA (1988) CT evaluation of gallstones in vitro. Correlation with chemical analysis. AJR 151:1123–1128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Tomomi Yamada and appreciate her support for the statistical analyses of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nephro-Urologic Surgery and Andrology, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Mie, Japan

    Yusuke Sugino, Takeshi Sasaki, Kiminobu Arima & Yoshiki Sugimura

  2. Department of Urology, Yokkaichi Hazu Medical Hospital, Mie, Japan

    Yusuke Sugino & Takahiro Kato

  3. Department of Radiology, Yokkaichi Hazu Medical Hospital, Mie, Japan

    Shigeru Furuya

Authors
  1. Yusuke Sugino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takahiro Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shigeru Furuya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Takeshi Sasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kiminobu Arima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yoshiki Sugimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yusuke Sugino.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sugino, Y., Kato, T., Furuya, S. et al. The usefulness of the maximum Hounsfield units (HU) in predicting the shockwave lithotripsy outcome for ureteral stones and the proposal of novel indicators using the maximum HU. Urolithiasis 48, 85–91 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01123-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01123-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation