Abstract
Periodic imaging of the recurrent stone former is an important component of their management. Imaging can help monitor for stone activity and the effectiveness of preventative strategies. There are a number of factors to take into consideration when choosing the appropriate imaging modality to follow a stone patient. These factors include whether the stones will be radio-opaque, as well as the amount of radiation the imaging study exposes patients to. In addition, cost is an important consideration when choosing a study. Non-contrast computed tomography remains the most sensitive imaging study for the evaluation of nephrolithiasis; however it is associated with relatively high cost and radiation. New low dose protocols reduce the radiation exposure. Renal ultrasound does not expose patients to any radiation and may be useful for the follow-up of radio-lucent stones. Plain abdominal radiography is both inexpensive and associated with minimal radiation exposure. Its use should be limited to patients with radio-opaque stones. Finally, new technologies, such as digital tomosynthesis may prove to be useful in the follow-up of recurrent stone formers. Digital tomosynthesis has improved sensitivity for stone detection compared to plain radiography with less cost and radiation than low dose computed tomography.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Pearle MS, et al. Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2014;192(2):316–24.
Lipkin ME, Preminger GM. Imaging techniques for stone disease and methods for reducing radiation exposure. Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40(1):47–57.
Niemann T, Kollmann T, Bongartz G. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):396–401.
Poletti PA, et al. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(4):927–33.
Mermuys K, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in the detection of urolithiasis: diagnostic performance and dosimetry compared with digital radiography with MDCT as the reference standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(1):161–7.
Kluner C, et al. Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006;30(1):44–50.
Fulgham PF, et al. Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculus disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1203–13.
Ray AA, et al. Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology. 2010;76(2):295–300.
Goldwasser B, et al. Role of linear tomography in evaluation of patients with nephrolithiasis. Urology. 1989;33(3):253–6.
Astroza GM, et al. Radiation exposure in the follow-up of patients with urolithiasis comparing digital tomosynthesis, non-contrast CT, standard KUB, and IVU. J Endourol. 2013;27(10):1187–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lipkin, M.E. (2015). Imaging (Cost, Radiation). In: Monga, M., Penniston, K., Goldfarb, D. (eds) Pocket Guide to Kidney Stone Prevention. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11098-1_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11098-1_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11097-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11098-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)