Purpose: The aim was to compare the findings of non-contrast computerized tomography (NCCT) evaluated by urology specialists with the findings of experienced radiologists, who are accepted as a standard reference for patients who present with acute flank pain. Materials and Methods: Five hundred patients evaluated with NCCT were included in the study. The NCCT images of these patients were evaluated by both radiologists and urology specialists in terms of the presence of calculus, size of calculus, the location of calculus, the presence of hydronephrosis, and pathologies other than calculus, and the results were compared. Results: The evaluations of urology specialists and standard reference radiology specialists are consistent with each other in terms of the presence of calculus (kappa [κ]: 0.904), categorical stone size (κ: 0.81), the location of calculus (κ: 0.88), and hydronephrosis (κ: 0.94). However, the evaluations of urology specialists in detecting pathologies other than calculus, which may cause acute flank pain or accompany renal colic, were found to be inadequate (κ: 0.37). The false-negative rate of detecting pathologies outside of the urinary system by the urology specialists is calculated as 0.86. Conclusion: Although the urology specialists can evaluate the findings related to calculus sufficiently with NCCT, they may not discover pathologies outside of the urinary system.

Keywords:
Acute flank pain, Computed tomography, Radiologist, Urologist
1.
West B, Luke A, Durazo-Arvizu RA, et al: Metabolic syndrome and self-reported history of kidney stones: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) 1988-1994. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;51:741-747.
2.
Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al; Urologic Diseases in America Project: Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 2012;62:160-165.
3.
Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG: Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010;12:e86-e96.
4.
Lieske JC, Peña de la Vega LS, Slezak JM, et al: Renal stone epidemiology in Rochester, Minnesota: an update. Kidney Int 2006;69:760-764.
5.
Wang S, Zhang Y, Mao Z, et al: A meta-analysis of coffee intake and risk of urolithiasis. Urol Int 2014;93:220-228.
6.
Shakhssalim N, Basiri A, Houshmand M, et al: Genetic polymorphisms in calcitonin receptor gene and risk for recurrent kidney calcium stone disease. Urol Int 2014;92:356-362.
7.
Heidenreich A, Desgrandschamps F, Terrier F: Modern approach of diagnosis and management of acute flank pain: review of all imaging modalities. Eur Urol 2002;41:351-362.
8.
Portis AJ, Sundaram CP: Diagnosis and initial management of kidney stones. Am Fam Physician 2001;63:1329-1338.
9.
Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Seitz C; members of the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Office: European Association of Urology Guidelineson Urolithiasis. 28. Milano, EAU Annual Congress, 2013.
10.
Hale Z, Hanna E, Miyake M, et al: Imaging the urologic patient: the utility of intravenous pyelogram in the CT scan era. World J Urol 2014;32:137-142.
11.
Resorlu M, Adam G, Uysal F, et al: Re: Imaging the urologic patient: the utility of intravenous pyelogram in the CT scan era. World J Urol 2014;32:837.
12.
Rafi M, Shetty A, Gunja N: Accuracy of computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder interpretation by emergency physicians. Emerg Med Australas 2013;25:422-426.
13.
Hoppe H, Studer R, Kessler TM, et al: Alternate or additional findings to stone disease on unenhanced computerized tomography for acute flank pain can impact management. J Urol 2006;175:1725-1730.
14.
Arendts G, Manovel A, Chai A: Cranial CT interpretation by senior emergency department staff. Australas Radiol 2003;47:368-374.
15.
Zilberman DE, Tsivian M, Lipkin ME, et al: Low dose computerized tomography for detection of urolithiasis - its effectiveness in the setting of the urology clinic. J Urol 2011;185:910-914.
16.
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;191:396-401.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.