Objective: To study the feasibility of ultrasonography (US) as a replacement for CT during the diagnosis of ureteral calculi (UC). Materials and Methods: Clinical and imaging data of patients with UC between January 2013 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the imaging method, patients were divided into 3 groups: Group A, CT alone; Group B, CT and US, Group C, US alone. Age, location, and the size of stones were compared among the groups. According to the maximum diameter (MD) measured by using CT in Group B, patients were subdivided into 3 groups (subgroup 1–3): MD <0.5 cm, 0.5 cm ≤ MD ≤1.0 cm, and MD >1.0 cm. The MD measured by US and CT were compared in the subgroups. Results: A total of 1,289 patients with UC were admitted. The use of CT correlated with age (p = 0.000) and stone location (p = 0.004). The sensitivity and specificity of US were 71.3 and 100%. Positive US results correlated with stone size (p = 0.008), but not location (p = 0.861). The mean MDs of the calculi measured by US and CT: in subgroup 1:  0.80 ± 0.31 and 0.35 ± 0.05 cm (p = 0.000); in subgroup 2: 0.94 ± 0.32 and 0.72 ± 0.16 cm (p = 0.000); in subgroup 3: 1.75 ± 0.68 and 1.59 ± 0.52 cm (p = 0.094). Conclusions: US confirmed that UC do not require confirmatory CT. US can replace CT as the initial imaging examination of UC.

Keywords:
Ureteral calculus, Ultrasonography, CT scan, Radiation exposure
1.
Fwu CW, Eggers PW, Kimmel PL, Kusek JW, Kirkali Z. Emergency department visits, use of imaging, and drugs for urolithiasis have increased in the United States.
Kidney Int
. 2013 Mar;83(3):479–86.
2.
Brown J. Diagnostic and treatment patterns for renal colic in US emergency departments.
Int Urol Nephrol
. 2006;38(1):87–92.
3.
Chowdhury FU, Kotwal S, Raghunathan G, Wah TM, Joyce A, Irving HC. Unenhanced multidetector CT (CT KUB) in the initial imaging of suspected acute renal colic: evaluating a new service.
Clin Radiol
. 2007 Oct;62(10):970–7.
4.
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I.
J Urol
. 2016 Oct;196(4):1153–60.
5.
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.
N Engl J Med
. 2007 Nov;357(22):2277–84.
6.
Moore CL, Daniels B, Ghita M, Gunabushanam G, Luty S, Molinaro AM, et al. Accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography for ureteral stones in emergency department patients.
Ann Emerg Med
. 2015 Feb;65(2):189–98.e2.
7.
Ripollés T, Martínez-Pérez MJ, Vizuete J, Miralles S, Delgado F, Pastor-Navarro T. Sonographic diagnosis of symptomatic ureteral calculi: usefulness of the twinkling artifact.
Abdom Imaging
. 2013 Aug;38(4):863–9.
8.
Abdel-Gawad M, Kadasne RD, Elsobky E, Ali-El-Dein B, Monga M. A Prospective Comparative Study of Color Doppler Ultrasound with Twinkling and Noncontrast Computerized Tomography for the Evaluation of Acute Renal Colic.
J Urol
. 2016 Sep;196(3):757–62.
9.
Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. European Association of Urology 2018 edition Guidelines.
10.
Broder J, Bowen J, Lohr J, Babcock A, Yoon J. Cumulative CT exposures in emergency department patients evaluated for suspected renal colic.
J Emerg Med
. 2007 Aug;33(2):161–8.
11.
Hyams ES, Korley FK, Pham JC, Matlaga BR. Trends in imaging use during the emergency department evaluation of flank pain.
J Urol
. 2011 Dec;186(6):2270–4.
12.
Westphalen AC, Hsia RY, Maselli JH, Wang R, Gonzales R. Radiological imaging of patients with suspected urinary tract stones: national trends, diagnoses, and predictors.
Acad Emerg Med
. 2011 Jul;18(7):699–707.
13.
Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, et al. Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study.
Lancet
. 2012 Aug;380(9840):499–505.
14.
Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, et al. Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians.
BMJ
. 2013 May;346:f2360.
15.
Rodger F, Roditi G, Aboumarzouk OM. Diagnostic Accuracy of Low and Ultra-Low Dose CT for Identification of Urinary Tract Stones: A Systematic Review.
Urol Int
. 2018;100(4):375–85.
16.
Hyams ES, Shah O. Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure.
Curr Urol Rep
. 2010 Mar;11(2):80–6.
17.
Sternberg KM, Littenberg B. Trends in Imaging Use for the Evaluation and Followup of Kidney Stone Disease: A Single Center Experience.
J Urol
. 2017 Aug;198(2):383–8.
18.
Mitterberger M, Aigner F, Pallwein L, -Pinggera GM, Neururer R, Rehder P, et al. Sonographic detection of renal and -ureteral stones. Value of the twinkling sign. 
Int Braz J Urol
. 2009 Sep-Oct;35(5):532–9.
19.
Smith-Bindman R, Aubin C, Bailitz J, Bengiamin RN, Camargo CA Jr, Corbo J, et al. Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis.
N Engl J Med
. 2014 Sep;371(12):1100–10.
20.
Moore CL, Bomann S, Daniels B, Luty S, Molinaro A, Singh D, et al. Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone–the STONE score: retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies.
BMJ
. 2014 Mar;348:g2191.
21.
Wang RC, Rodriguez RM, Moghadassi M, Noble V, Bailitz J, Mallin M, et al. External Validation of the STONE Score, a Clinical Prediction Rule for Ureteral Stone: An -Observational Multi-institutional Study.
Ann Emerg Med
. 2016 Apr;67(4):423–432.e2.
22.
Fukuhara H, Kakizaki H, Ichiyanagi O, Kaneko H, Yamanobe T, Nakayama S, et al. A new scoring system for predicting uncomplicated ureteral stones without radiological images in the emergency room: a retrospective single-center study.
J Urol
. 2015 Apr;193(4S):e954–5.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
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.