BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patlas, M
Right arrow Articles by Hadas-Halpern, I
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patlas, M
Right arrow Articles by Hadas-Halpern, I
British Journal of Radiology 74 (2001),901-904 © 2001 The British Institute of Radiology

Full paper

Ultrasound vs CT for the detection of ureteric stones in patients with renal colic

M Patlas, MD 1 A Farkas, MD 2 D Fisher, MD 1 I Zaghal, MD 1 and I Hadas-Halpern, MD 1

Departments of 1Radiology and 2Urology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem 91031, Israel

Correspondence: Irith Hadas-Halpern, MD

The aim of our study was to compare the accuracy of non-contrast spiral CT with ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of ureteral calculi in the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. 62 consecutive patients with flank pain were examined with both CT and US over a period of 9 months. All patients were prospectively defined as either positive or negative for ureterolithiasis, based on follow-up evaluation. 43 of the 62 patients were confirmed as having ureteral calculi based on stone recovery or urological interventions. US showed 93% sensitivity and 95% specificity in the diagnosis of ureterolithiasis; CT showed 91% and 95%, respectively. Pathology unrelated to urinary stone disease was demonstrated in six patients. Although both modalities were excellent for detecting ureteral stones, consideration of cost and radiation lead us to suggest that US be employed first and CT be reserved for when US is unavailable or non-diagnostic.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
S. J. Park, B. H. Yi, H. K. Lee, Y. H. Kim, G. J. Kim, and H. C. Kim
Evaluation of Patients With Suspected Ureteral Calculi Using Sonography as an Initial Diagnostic Tool: How Can We Improve Diagnostic Accuracy?
J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2008; 27(10): 1441 - 1450.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P.-A. Poletti, A. Platon, O. T. Rutschmann, F. R. Schmidlin, C. E. Iselin, and C. D. Becker
Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose CT Protocol in Patients with Clinically Suspected Renal Colic
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2007; 188(4): 927 - 933.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
M. Mitterberger, G. M. Pinggera, E. Maier, H. Neuwirt, R. Neururer, L. Pallwein, J. Gradl, G. Bartsch, H. Strasser, and F. Frauscher
Value of 3-Dimensional Transrectal/ Transvaginal Sonography in Diagnosis of Distal Ureteral Calculi
J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2007; 26(1): 19 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
S. I. Katz, S. Saluja, J. A. Brink, and H. P. Forman
Radiation Dose Associated with Unenhanced CT for Suspected Renal Colic: Impact of Repetitive Studies.
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2006; 186(4): 1120 - 1124.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
E. Ozden, C. Gogus, K. Turkolmez, and C. Yagci
Is Fluid Ingestion Really Necessary During Ultrasonography for Detecting Ureteral Stones?: A Prospective Randomized Study
J. Ultrasound Med., December 1, 2005; 24(12): 1651 - 1657.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
Durr-e-Sabih, A. N. Khan, M. Craig, and J. A. Worrall
Sonographic Mimics of Renal Calculi
J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2004; 23(10): 1361 - 1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2001 by the British Institute of Radiology.