The role of ultrasonography in detecting urinary tract calculi compared to CT scan

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography (US) in measuring the urinary tract stone using non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) as the standard reference.

Patients and methods

A total of 184 patients suspected with urolithiasis who had undergone NCCT and US radiologic investigation from 2015 to 2017 were enrolled in this study. The sensitivity, specificity, and stone size measured in US were validated by NCCT. Data of the stone size in US were classified into four groups (0–3.5, 3.6–5, 5.1–10, >10 mm) and then compared with NCCT data.

Results

In 184 patients, NCCT detected 276 (97.2%) stones, while US could identify 213 (75.5%) stones. Overall sensitivity and specificity of US were 75.4% and 16.7%, respectively. Detection rate of mid and distal ureteral stone was lower than that at other locations. The detection rate increased with the stone size. About 73% concordance was obtained for the stone size measured by US and NCCT (Pearson’s correlation coefficient was 0.841). Factors such as the stone size, amount of hydronephrosis, and weight affected the detection rate of the urinary tract stone using US (P<0.001, P=0.02, and P=0.01, respectively).

Conclusion

The stone size obtained by US was almost the same as that detected by NCCT; however, US is a limited imaging modality in detecting urinary tract stone, especially when used by an inexperienced radiologist, and in the case of smaller stone size, increased weight, and low grade of hydronephrosis.

Video abstract

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

http://youtu.be/8eGVIKjf48c

Keywords:

• non-contrast computed tomography
• ultrasonography
• urinary tract
• stone

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, and also, Center for Development of Clinical Research of Nemazee Hospital and Dr Nasrin Shokrpour for editorial assistance.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.