Display options
Cite
Abou El-Ghar ME, Shokeir AA, Refaie HF, et al. Low-dose unenhanced computed tomography for diagnosing stone disease in obese patients. Arab J Urol. 2012;10(3):279-83doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.02.007.
Abou El-Ghar, M. E., Shokeir, A. A., Refaie, H. F., & El-Nahas, A. R. (2012). Low-dose unenhanced computed tomography for diagnosing stone disease in obese patients. Arab journal of urology, 10(3), 279-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.02.007
Abou El-Ghar, Mohamed E, et al. "Low-dose unenhanced computed tomography for diagnosing stone disease in obese patients." Arab journal of urology vol. 10,3 (2012): 279-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2012.02.007
Abou El-Ghar ME, Shokeir AA, Refaie HF, El-Nahas AR. Low-dose unenhanced computed tomography for diagnosing stone disease in obese patients. Arab J Urol. 2012 Sep;10(3):279-83. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.02.007. Epub 2012 Apr 18. PMID: 26558037; PMCID: PMC4442952.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Arab J Urol. 2012 Sep;10(3):279-83. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.02.007. Epub 2012 Apr 18.

Low-dose unenhanced computed tomography for diagnosing stone disease in obese patients.

Arab journal of urology

Mohamed E Abou El-Ghar, Ahmed A Shokeir, Huda F Refaie, Ahmed R El-Nahas

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
  2. Department of Urology, Urology & Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

PMID: 26558037 PMCID: PMC4442952 DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2012.02.007

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the detectability, size, location and density of urinary stones with unenhanced computed tomography (CT), using the half-radiation (low) dose (LDCT) technique, compared with the standard-dose CT (SDCT), in obese patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 50 patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m(2) and bilateral renal stones diagnosed with SDCT, and managed on one side. All the patients had LDCT during the follow-up and SDCT was used as a reference for comparison.

RESULTS: Of the 50 patients, the right side was affected in 27 and the left side in 23. In all, 35 patients had a single stone while the remaining 15 had multiple stones. With SDCT, 95 stones were detected; there were 45 of ⩽5 mm, 46 of 6-15 mm and only four of >15 mm. LDCT barely detected three stones of <3 mm, compared with SDCT, while larger stones had the same appearance at both scans. The site of stone in the kidney or the ureter did not affect its detection on LDCT vs. SDCT. The mean stone diameter was identical in both techniques. At LDCT, all stones were detected with no difference in their number, location or density vs. SDCT. However, the tube current and radiation dose were significantly lower with LDCT.

CONCLUSIONS: In obese patients with stone disease, LDCT is as accurate as SDCT, while avoiding exposure of the patient to high-dose radiation.

Keywords: BMI, body mass index; LDCT, low-dose CT; Low dose; Multi-detector CT; Obesity; Radiation; SDCT, standard-dose CT; Stones

References

  1. Eur J Radiol. 2011 Nov;80(2):213-8 - PubMed
  2. Clin Radiol. 1999 Jul;54(7):444-7 - PubMed
  3. Lancet. 2006 Jan 28;367(9507):333-44 - PubMed
  4. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Feb;180(2):313-5 - PubMed
  5. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jan;192(1):143-9 - PubMed
  6. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84 - PubMed
  7. Acta Radiol. 2005 Nov;46(7):756-63 - PubMed
  8. Miner Electrolyte Metab. 1985;11(4):267-9 - PubMed
  9. N Engl J Med. 2004 Feb 12;350(7):684-93 - PubMed
  10. Br J Radiol. 2001 Aug;74(884):727-34 - PubMed
  11. J Urol. 2002 Apr;167(4):1687-91 - PubMed
  12. Br J Radiol. 2009 Dec;82(984):1010-8 - PubMed
  13. Invest Urol. 1978 May;15(6):438-41 - PubMed
  14. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):553-62 - PubMed
  15. Radiology. 2003 Nov;229(2):575-80 - PubMed
  16. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Jan;190(1):151-7 - PubMed
  17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Apr;188(4):927-33 - PubMed
  18. J Urol. 1999 Jul;162(1):27-30 - PubMed
  19. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2002 Oct;23(5):402-10 - PubMed
  20. Lancet. 1998 Jun 13;351(9118):1797-801 - PubMed
  21. Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):619-28 - PubMed
  22. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Dec;175(6):1689-95 - PubMed
  23. Radiology. 2000 Dec;217(3):792-7 - PubMed
  24. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Jan;166(1):97-101 - PubMed
  25. Radiology. 2010 Apr;255 (1):100-7 - PubMed
  26. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(1):4-17 - PubMed
  27. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Nov;177(5):1117-21 - PubMed
  28. Eur Radiol. 2003 May;13(5):1148-53 - PubMed

Publication Types