Factors that predict the spontaneous passage of ureteric stones in children

Figures & data

Figure 1 An axial image of UHCT of a 14-year-old girl, showing a TRS.

Figure 2 An axial image of UHCT showing perinephric stranding.

Table 1 Spontaneous passage frequency and average time to stone passage as a function of stone size and location.

Stone	No. of stones	Stone passed	Passage frequency (%)^a	Mean time to passage (days)
Size (mm)
1–2	14	14	100	12
>2–4	24	22	92	18
>4–6	28	18	68	35
>6–8	4	0	0
>8–10	2	0	0
Ureteric location
Proximal	22	10	45	32
Mid	17	12	70	21
Distal	33	32	94	19

a Chi-square test, P < 0.05.

Table 2 The effect of the secondary signs of UHCT on stone passage.

UHCT findings/stone passage	Grade
	I	II	P^a
TRS
Stone passed	48	6	<0.001
No passage	4	14
Perinephric fat stranding
Stone passed	52	2	<0.001
No passage	3	15
Hydronephrosis
Stone passed	34	20	0.005
No passage	5	13

a Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests.

Table 3 Multivariate logistic regression analysis of the predictors of stone passage.

Factor assessed	B	Wald	Significance	Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)
Stone size	0.85	1.05	0.306	2.33 (0.461–11.79)
Patient age	0.19	0.42	0.517	1.21 (0.684–2.127)
Gender	1.51	0.63	0.428	4.53 (0.108–19.50)
Location	3.57	5.43	0.020	35.5 (1.761–71.37)
TRS	2.39	1.96	0.161	11.0 (0.385–31.09)
Perinephric stranding	6.09	6.84	0.009	39.8 (4.59–143.6)
Hydronephrosis	1.54	0.60	0.439	4.65 (0.004–10.56)
Constant	−18.73	5.40	0.020	<0.001