Skip to main content
Log in

The role of contrast-enhanced computed tomography to detect renal stones

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the detectability of renal stones in corticomedullary and nephrographic phases on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT).

Methods

All consecutive patients between January 2012 and February 2016 undergoing CT of the kidneys according to our department’s standard four-phase protocol and having at least one stone in the NC-phase (NCP) were included. Fifty patients with altogether 136 stones were eligible. Two radiologists in consensus evaluated the NCP from each examination and documented the number, location, and size of stones. Three abdominal radiologists blinded to the findings of the NCP reviewed independently the corticomedullary and nephrographic phases on two different occasions. They reported the number and location of stones in each kidney. For the inter-observer agreement the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was estimated. The detection rate of renal stones was calculated for the three radiologists and compared between the two contrast-enhanced phases and the results were analyzed with concern to the size of the stones.

Results

The ICC was 0.86. There was no statistically significant difference between corticomedullary and nephrographic phases (p = 0.94). The detection rate for stones measuring 3–5 mm was 82–88% and 98% for stones ≥ 6 mm.

Conclusion

The detectability of renal stones ≥ 6 mm on contrast-enhanced CT is extremely high. This means that stones with a higher risk of not passing spontaneously can be safely diagnosed.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed tomography

CE:

Contrast-enhanced

CEP:

Contrast-enhanced phases

CM:

Contrast media

CMP:

Corticomedullary phase

DE-CT:

Dual-energy CT

EP:

Excretory phase

ICC:

Intra-class correlation coefficient

IV:

Intravenous

I:

Iodine

MDCT:

Multidetector computed tomography

NGP:

Nephrographic phase

NC:

Non-contrast

NCP:

Non-contrast phase

References

  1. Kawamoto S, Horton KM, Fishman EK (2008) Detection of renal calculi on late arterial phase computed tomography images: are noncontrast scans always needed to detect renal calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:859–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng PM, Moin P, Dunn MD, et al. (2012) What the radiologist needs to know about urolithiasis: part 1—pathogenesis, types, assessment, and variant anatomy. AJR 198:540–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Furlan A, Federle MP, Yealy DM, et al. (2008) Nonobstructing renal stones on unenhanced CT: a real cause for renal colic? AJR 190:125–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dym RJ, Duncan DR, Spektor M, et al. (2014) Renal stones on portal venous phase contrast-enhanced CT: does intravenous contrast interfere with detection? Abdom Imaging 39:526–532

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Brandt B, Ostri P, Lange P, et al. (1993) Painful caliceal calculi. The treatment of small nonobstructing caliceal calculi in patients with symptoms. Scand J Urol Nephrol 27:75–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng PM, Moin P, Dunn MD, et al. (2012) What the radiologist needs to know about urolithiasis: part 2—CT findings, reporting, and treatment. AJR 198:548–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Renard-Penna R, Martin A, Conort P, et al. (2015) Kidney stones and imaging: what can your radiologist do for you? World J Urol 33:193–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S (2004) Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics 24:11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eisner BH, McQuaid JW, Hyams E, et al. (2011) Nephrolithiasis: what surgeons need to know. AJR 196:1274–1278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. (1995) Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 194:789–794

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pfister SA, Deckart A, Laschke A, et al. (2003) Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. Eur Radiol 13:2513–2520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bland MJ, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical assessment. The Lancet 327:307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cicchetti Domenic V (1994) Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jura YH, Lahey S, Eisner BH, et al. (2013) Ureteroscopic treatment of patients with small, painful, non-obstructing renal stones: the small stone syndrome. Clin Nephrol 79:45–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Corwin MT, Lee JS, Fananapazir G, et al. (2016) Detection of renal stones on portal venous phase CT: comparison of thin axial and coronal maximum-intensity-projection images. AJR 207:1200–1204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Takahashi N, Vrtiska TJ, Kawashima A, et al. (2010) Detectability of urinary stones on virtual nonenhanced images generated at pyelographic-phase dual-energy CT. Radiology 256:184–190

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Mangold S, Thomas C, Fenchel M, et al. (2012) Virtual nonenhanced dual-energy CT urography with tin-filter technology: determinants of detection of urinary calculi in the renal collecting system. Radiology 264:119–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Per Näsman, Center for Safety Research, Department of Transport Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm, Sweden.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Odenrick.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Not available.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Odenrick, A., Kartalis, N., Voulgarakis, N. et al. The role of contrast-enhanced computed tomography to detect renal stones. Abdom Radiol 44, 652–660 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1778-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1778-7

Keywords

Navigation