Advertisement

Ureteroscopy pp 233-249 | Cite as

Radiation Safety During Ureteroscopy

  • Don C. ArnoldII
  • D. Duane Baldwin
Chapter
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)

Abstract

Medical imaging is essential for state-of-the-art diagnosis, surgical treatment and follow-up in individuals undergoing ureteroscopy. The imaging utilized has evolved from the use of plain films and intravenous pyelograms (IVP) with long acquisition times to spiral CT imaging with rapid image acquisition, high sensitivity and specificity. Although these advances in imaging have improved patient care, they have produced a moderate to significant increase in radiation exposure. Since the effects of radiation are not immediately perceived by the patient or the physician, their inherent risks may be easily overlooked. It is important that the urologic surgeon consider the potential risks and benefits of all imaging modalities prior to employing them.

Recently, concerns regarding increasing patient radiation exposure from medical imaging have led the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to call for a reduction in exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. In order to ensure high quality healthcare while optimizing patient safety it becomes essential for the treating physician to develop a clear understanding of the units of radiation exposure, the amount of radiation provided by different diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, the potential risks associated with this radiation exposure and the reduced radiation alternatives currently available. By adhering to the principles outlined in this chapter for the appropriate utilization of ionizing radiation, the urologic surgeon can achieve optimal outcomes with a significant reduction in risk for both the patient and staff.

Keywords

Radiation Exposure Pregnant Patient Ureteral Stone Flank Pain Reduce Radiation Exposure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Young HH, Frontz WA, Baldwin JC. Congenital obstruction of the posterior urethra. J Urol. 1919;3:289–365. J Urol. 2002;167(1):265–67; discussion 268.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kavoussi L, Clayman RV, Basler J. Flexible, actively deflectable fiberoptic ureteronephroscopy. J Urol. 1989;142(4):949–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Higashihara E, et al. Laser ureterolithotripsy with combined rigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy. J Urol. 1990;143(2):273–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grasso M, Bagley D. A 7.5/8.2 F actively deflectable, flexible ureteroscope: a new device for both diagnostic and therapeutic upper urinary tract endoscopy. Urology. 1994;43(4):435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology. 2004;231:393–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doctors “shocked” by radiation overexposure at Cedars-Sinai. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/doctors-shocked-radiation-exposure/story?id=8818377. Accessed 8 Dec 2011.
  7. 7.
    Radiation overdoses from CT scans lead to maladies in patients. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/radiation_overdoses_from_ct_sc.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2011.
  8. 8.
    Illinois medical malpractice blog. http://medicalmalpractice.levinperconti.com/radiation_injury/. Accessed 23 Oct 2011.
  9. 9.
    Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography–an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Berrington Gonzalez A, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(22):2071–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    White Paper: Initiative to Reduce Unnecessary Radiation Exposure from Medical Imaging. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationSafety/RadiationDoseReduction/ucm199994.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greene R. Fleischner Lecture. Imaging the respiratory system in the first few years after discovery of the X-ray: contributions of Francis H. Williams, M.D. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159(1):1–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leucutia T. Heuristic gems from the American Radium Society. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1974;121(3):653–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coppes-Zantinga AR, Coppes MJ. Madame Marie Curie (1867–1934): a giant connecting two centuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(6):1453–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langland OE, Langlais RP. Early pioneers of oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;80(5):496–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feinendegen LE. Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(925):3–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolff S. The adaptive response in radiobiology: evolving insights and implications. Environ Health Perspect. 1998;106 Suppl 1:277–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature. 2003;421(6924):691–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puskin JS. Perspective on the use of LNT for radiation protection and risk assessment by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Dose Response. 2009;7(4):284–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoel DG, Li P. Threshold models in radiation carcinogenesis. Health Phys. 1998;75(3):241–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2011.
  22. 22.
    Ng KH. Non-ionizing radiations- sources, biological effects, emissions, and exposures. Proceedings of the International Conference on Non-ionizing Radiation at UNITEN. Oct. 20th-22nd, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia. 2003. p. 1–16.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groves AM, et al. 16-detector multislice CT: dosimetry estimation by TLD measurement compared with Monte Carlo simulation. Br J Radiol. 2004;77(920):662–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobi W. The concept of the effective dose–a proposal for the combination of organ doses. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1975;12(2):101–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frequently asked questions. http://www.radprocalculator.com/FAQ.aspx. Accessed 23 Dec 2011.
  26. 26.
    Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257(1):246–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jaworowski Z. Radiation risk and ethics. Phys Today. 1999;52(9):24–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Standards for protection against radiation: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final rule. Fed Regist. 1991;56(98):23360–474.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wrixon AD. New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot. 2008;28(2):161–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koenig TR, Mettler FA, Wagner LK. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 2, review of 73 cases and recommendations for minimizing dose delivered to patient. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):13–20.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koenig TR, et al. Skin injuries from fluoroscopically guided procedures: part 1, characteristics of radiation injury. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):3–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miller DL, et al. Minimizing radiation-induced skin injury in interventional radiology procedures. Radiology. 2002;225(2):329–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith JC, et al. Ultra-low-dose protocol for CT-guided lung biopsies. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(4):431–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Paulino AC, et al. Normal tissue development, homeostasis, senescence, and the sensitivity to radiation injury across the age spectrum. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2010;20(1):12–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sodickson A, et al. Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. Radiology. 2009;251(1):175–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sampaio FJB, BA, Bohle A, Billis A, et al. Urological survey: editorial comment re: computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. Int Braz J Urol. 2007;33(6):854–77.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Delongchamp RR, et al. Cancer mortality among atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. Radiat Res. 1997;147(3):385–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jellison FC, et al. Effect of low dose radiation computerized tomography protocols on distal ureteral calculus detection. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2762–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pierce DA, Preston DL. Radiation-related cancer risks at low doses among atomic bomb survivors. Radiat Res. 2000;154(2):178–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Preston DL, et al. Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958–1998. Radiat Res. 2007;168(1):1–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brenner DJ, et al. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(24):13761–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abdominal X-ray procedure & cost information. http://newchoicehealth.com/Directory/Procedure/81/Abdominal%20X-Ray. Accessed 8 Dec 2011.
  43. 43.
    Heidenreich A, Desgrandschamps F, Terrier F. Modern approach of diagnosis and management of acute flank pain: review of all imaging modalities. Eur Urol. 2002;41(4):351–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mettler FA, et al. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology. 2008;248(1):254–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Levine JA, et al. Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997;204(1):27–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tamm EP, Silverman PM, Shuman WP. Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus. Radiology. 2003;228(2):319–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Passerotti C, et al. Ultrasound versus computerized tomography for evaluating urolithiasis. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1829–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pfister SA, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography vs intravenous urography in patients with acute flank pain: accuracy and economic impact in a randomized prospective trial. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(11):2513–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen MYM, Zagoria RJ. Can noncontrast helical computed tomography replace intravenous urography for evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic? J Emerg Med. 1999;17(2):299–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grisi G, et al. Cost analysis of different protocols for imaging a patient with acute flank pain. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(10):1620–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Katayama H, et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology. 1990;175(3):621–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Goldenberg I, Matetzky S. Nephropathy induced by contrast media: pathogenesis, risk factors and preventive strategies. CMAJ. 2005;172(11):1461–71 (vol 173(10), p. 1210, 2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dalrymple NC, et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998;159(3):735–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ng WH, Lee PSF, Chan HCA, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of protocol driven intravenous urogram performed by radiographers. J HK Coll Radiol. 2003;6:86–9.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shokeir AA, et al. Diagnosis of ureteral obstruction in patients with compromised renal function: the role of noninvasive imaging modalities. J Urol. 2004;171(6):2303–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    MRI cost & MRI procedure introduction. http://newchoicehealth.com/MRI-Cost. Accessed 8 Dec 2011.
  57. 57.
    Vrtiska TJ. Quantitation of stone burden: imaging advances. Urol Res. 2005;33(5):398–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sandhu C, Anson KM, Patel U. Urinary tract stones—part 1: role of radiological Imaging in diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Radiol. 2003;58(6):415–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hoppe H, et al. Alternate or additional findings to stone disease on unenhanced computerized tomography for acute flank pain can impact management. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1725–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jaffe TA, et al. Radiation dose for body CT protocols: variability of scanners at one institution. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):1141–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    McNicholas MMJ, et al. Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(5):1261–7.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology. 2009;250(2):309–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Caoili EM, et al. Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology. 2002;222(2):353–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stabin M, et al. Radiation-dosimetry for technetium-99 m-MAG3, technetium-99 m-DTPA, and iodine-131-OIH based on human biodistribution studies. J Nucl Med. 1992;33(1):33–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Taylor A, Schuster DM, Alazraki A, editors. Clinician’s guide to nuclear medicine. 1st ed. Reston: Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.; 2000. p. 45–56.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chen MYM, Pope Thomas L. Jr, Ott DJ. Basic radiology. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York, 2004. p. 15–8.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jamal JE, et al. Perioperative patient radiation exposure in the endoscopic removal of upper urinary tract calculi. J Endourol. 2011;25(11):1747–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bagley DH, Cublergoodman A. Radiation exposure during ureteroscopy. J Urol. 1990;144(6):1356–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Krupp N, et al. Fluoroscopic organ and tissue-specific radiation exposure by sex and body mass index during ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2010;24(7):1067–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Giblin JG, et al. Radiation risk to the urologist during endourologic procedures, and a new shield that reduces exposure. Urology. 1996;48(4):624–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ferrandino MN, et al. Radiation exposure in the acute and short-term management of urolithiasis at 2 academic centers. J Urol. 2009;181(2):668–72. ­discussion 673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kocher KE, et al. National trends in use of computed tomography in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(5):452–62.e3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Miller OF, Kane CJ. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: a guide for patient education. J Urol. 1999;162(3 Pt 1):688–90. discussion 690–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hamm M, et al. Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol. 2002;167(4):1687–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zilberman DE, et al. Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis-its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic. J Urol. 2011;185(3):910–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Poletti PA, et al. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):927–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Jin DH, et al. Effect of reduced radiation CT protocols on the detection of renal calculi. Radiology. 2010;255(1):100–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Heldt JP, et al. Ureteral calculi detection accuracy using low-dose computed tomography protocols is compromised in overweight and underweight patients. J Endourol. 2011;25:A93–A4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kalra MK, et al. Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with Z-axis automatic tube current modulation: phantom and clinical studies. Radiology. 2005;235(2):523–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    O’Malley ME, et al. Comparison of low dose with standard dose abdominal/pelvic multidetector CT in patients with stage 1 testicular cancer under surveillance. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(7):1624–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chow LC, et al. Split-bolus MDCT urography with synchronous nephrographic and excretory phase enhancement. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):314–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dahlman P, et al. Optimization of computed tomography urography protocol, 1997 to 2008: effects on radiation dose. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(4):446–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ngo TC, et al. Tracking intraoperative fluoroscopy utilization reduces radiation exposure during ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2011;25(5):763–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ionising radiation safety. http://www.e-radiography.net/radsafety/radsafety.htm. Accessed 8 Dec 2011.
  85. 85.
    Cocuzza M, et al. Use of inverted fluoroscope’s C-arm during endoscopic treatment of urinary tract obstruction in pregnancy: a practicable solution to cut radiation. Urology. 2010;75(6):1505–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Elkoushy MA, Andonian S. Prevalence of orthopedic complaints among endourologists and their compliance with radiation safety measures. J Endourol. 2011;25(10):1609–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hellawell GO, et al. Radiation exposure and the urologist: what are the risks? J Urol. 2005;74(3):948–52. discussion 952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chodick G, et al. Risk of cataract after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation: a 20-year prospective cohort study among US radiologic technologists. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(6):620–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tse V, et al. Radiation exposure during fluoroscopy: should we be protecting our thyroids? Aust N Z J Surg. 1999;69(12):847–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Reilly AJ, Sutton DG. A computer model of an image intensifier system working under automatic brightness control. Br J Radiol. 2001;74(886):938–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nakamura A, et al. Increased radiation dose by automatic exposure control system during fluoroscopy and angiography of pelvis due to contrast material in the bladder: experimental study. Radiat Med. 2004;22(4):225–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Bushberg J, Seiberd JA, Leidholdt EM, et al. The essential physics of medical imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippencott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Herrmann K, et al. Initial experiences with pulsed fluoroscopy on a multifunctional fluoroscopic unit. Rofo. 1996;165(5):475–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Holmes DR, et al. Effect of pulsed progressive fluoroscopy on reduction of radiation-dose in the Cardiac-Catheterization Laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15(1):159–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Hernandez RJ, Goodsitt MM. Reduction of radiation dose in pediatric patients using pulsed fluoroscopy. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(5):1247–53.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Greene DJ, et al. Comparison of a reduced radiation fluoroscopy protocol to conventional fluoroscopy during uncomplicated ureteroscopy. Urology. 2011;78(2):286–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Stewart A, Webb J, Hewitt D. A survey of childhood malignancies. Br Med J. 1958;1(5086):1495–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Monson RR, MacMahon B. Radiation carcinogenesis: epidemiology and biological significance prenatal X-ray exposure and cancer in children. New York: Raven; 1984.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Harvey EB, et al. Prenatal X-ray exposure and childhood cancer in twins. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(9):541–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Alzen G, Benz-Bohm G. Radiation protection in pediatric radiology. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(24):407–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Brenner D, et al. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(2):289–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bertell R, Ehrle LH, Schmitz-Feuerhake I. Pediatric CT research elevates public health concerns: low-dose radiation issues are highly politicized. Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(3):419–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Nickoloff E. Current adult and pediatric CT doses. Pediatr Radiol. 2002;32(4):250–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Routh JC, Graham DA, Nelson CP. Epidemiological trends in pediatric urolithiasis at United States freestanding pediatric hospitals. J Urol. 2010;184(3):1100–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    VanDervoort K, et al. Urolithiasis in pediatric patients: a single center study of incidence, clinical presentation and outcome. J Urol. 2007;177(6):2300–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pietrow PK, et al. Clinical outcome of pediatric stone disease. J Urol. 2002;167(2):670–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Johnson EK, et al. Are stone protocol computed tomography scans mandatory for children with suspected urinary calculi? Urology. 2011;78(3):662–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Srirangam SJ, Hickerton B, Van Cleynenbreugel B. Management of urinary calculi in pregnancy: a review. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):867–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Stothers L, Lee LM. Renal colic in pregnancy. J Urol. 1992;148(5):1383–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    McAleer SJ, Loughlin KR. Nephrolithiasis and pregnancy. Curr Opin Urol. 2004;14(2):123–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Shokeir AA, Mahran MR, Abdulmaaboud M. Renal colic in pregnant women: role of renal resistive index. Urology. 2000;55(3):344–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Di Salvo DN. Sonographic imaging of maternal complications of pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(1):69–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Laing FC, et al. Distal ureteral calculi: detection with vaginal US. Radiology. 1994;192(2):545–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Lewis DF, et al. Urolithiasis in pregnancy. Diagnosis, management and pregnancy outcome. J Reprod Med. 2003;48(1):28–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Loughlin KR, Ker LA. The current management of urolithiasis during pregnancy. Urol Clin North Am. 2002;29(3):701–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    White WM, et al. Low-dose computed tomography for the evaluation of flank pain in the pregnant population. J Endourol. 2007;21(11):1255–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Travassos M, et al. Ureteroscopy in pregnant women for ureteral stone. J Endourol. 2009;23(3):405–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Lifshitz DA, Lingeman JE. Ureteroscopy as a first-line intervention for ureteral calculi in pregnancy. J Endourol. 2002;16(1):19–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Akpinar H, et al. Ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy in pregnancy: stents must be used postoperatively. J Endourol. 2006;20(2):107–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Loughlin KR. Management of acute ureteral obstruction in pregnancy utilizing ultrasound-guided placement of ureteral stents. Urology. 1994;43(3):412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Jarrard DJ, Gerber GS, Lyon ES. Management of acute ureteral obstruction in pregnancy utilizing ultrasound-guided placement of ureteral stents. Urology. 1993;42(3):263–7. discussion 267–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR. The safety of ureteroscopy during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2009;181(1):139–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Radiation basics. http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/radiation.html. Accessed 22 Dec 2011.
  124. 124.
    SI radiation measurement units: conversion factors. http://www.stevequayle.com/ARAN/rad.conversion.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2011.
  125. 125.
    Radiation safety guide. http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/radsafeguide/rsg_app_e.htm#10. Accessed 23 Dec 2011.
  126. 126.
    The millisievert and milligray as measures of radiation dose and exposure. http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Radiation_definitions.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2011.
  127. 127.
    How are different amounts of radiation expressed? http://www.radiation-scott.org/radsource/2-0.htm. Accessed 23 Dec 2011.
  128. 128.
    Brenner DJ. Are X-ray backscatter scanners safe for airport passenger screening? For most individuals, probably yes, but a billion scans per year raises long-term public health concerns. Radiology. 2011;259(1):6–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Medvedev G. Chernoybl notebook. Novy Mir. 1989;(6):3–108.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Weinberg HSH, Korol AB, Kirzhner VM, Avivi A, et al. Very high mutation rate in offspring of Chernobyl accident liquidators. Proc Biol Sci. 2001;268(1471):1001–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don C. ArnoldII
    • 1
  • D. Duane Baldwin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of UrologyLoma Linda University School of MedicineLoma LindaUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyLoma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda University School of MedicineLoma LindaUSA

Personalised recommendations