Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 4956
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 9  |  Page : 4925-4928

The gap between ultrasonography and computed tomography in measuring the size of urinary calculi


Department of Diagnostic Radiology Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Taibah University, Almadinah Almunawarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Sultan Abdulwadoud Alshoabi
Department of Diagnostic Radiology Technology, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Taibah University, Almadinah Almunawwarah, Medina
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_742_20

Rights and Permissions

Objective: Due to a lack of studies regarding the need for computed tomography (CT) in measuring the size of each urinary calculus before surgery, this study was conducted to elucidate the difference between ultrasonography (US) and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones. Methods: A retrospective review of 100 stones from 83 patients. Each urinary stone was measured using both US and CT; both measurements were then compared. Results: Of 83 patients, the mean age was 39.29 ± 23.76 years; 47 (56.62%) were male and 36 (43.37%) were female. Most of the urinary stones were <10 mm (50.0%) followed by 11–20 mm (42.0%), (P < 0.001). A cross-tabulation test revealed strong compatibility between US and CT in measuring the size of urinary stones (73.7% in stones <10 mm, 66.7% in stones 11–20 mm and 50% in stones >21 mm), (P < 0.001). Spearman's rho correlation test revealed strong compatibility between stone diameters measured by US and CT (r = 0.755), (P = 0 < 0.001). T-test for equality of means revealed no significant difference in the measured size using US and CT (mean = 11.80 ± 5.83 vs. 11.65 ± 6.59, respectively), mean difference = 0.15, and P = 0.865, 95% confidence interval: -1.584–1.884. Conclusion: No significant difference in measuring the size of urinary stones using US and CT. However, US may slightly overestimate small stones in some cases.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed123    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded10    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal