Comparison of ultrasonography and Intravenous urography in predicting the outcome of Extracorporeal Shockwave lithotripsy in nephrolithiasis
Abstract
Introduction: ultrasound has a well established role in evaluating the kidney. Calculus is readily picked up on ultrasound. Normal sonographic features with doppler detection of ureteric jets indicate presence of normal renal function. Using these advantages we undertook this present study to determine whether ultrasound (USG) can replace intravenous urography (IVU) in the pre-operative evaluation of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) patients.
Methods and Material: This study was a prospective observational study conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Imphal, during a period of 2 years. 50 patients with confirmed renal stones referred for ESWL treatment in the Department of Urology, RIMS, Hospital, Imphal were included. USG and IVU were independently interpreted. Cases were grouped as excellent, good, borderline or poor cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of USG and IVU are compared.
Results: The sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in predicting the outcome after ESWL for solitary renal calculus is 95.8% and 50% respectively with a PPV and NPV of 97.8% and 33.33% respectively and the sensitivity and specificity of IVU in predicting the outcome after ESWL are 97.9% and 50% respectively with a PPV and NPV of 97.8% and 50% respectively.
Conclusions: USG can be the alternative radiological examination in the pre-operative evaluation of ESWL patients as the USG and IVU have comparable predictive values.
Downloads
References
2. Fowler CG. The kidneys and ureter. In: Rusell RCG, Williams NS and Bulstrode CJK. Bailey and Love’s Short practice of Surgery. 24thEdition London: A Hodder Arnold; 2004. 1313.
3. Cronan JJ. Urinary obstruction. In: Grainger RG, Allison D, Adam A and Dixon AK. Diagnostic Radiology. 4th Edition China: Churchill Livingstone; 2001.1594.
4. Whitfield HN. Stone disease progress with lithotripsy. In: Hendry WF. Recent advances in urology / Andrology. No.5 New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1991. 13-36.
5. Behan M, Wixson D and Kazam E. Sonographic evaluation of the nonfunctioning kidney. J clin Ultrasound 1979; 7(6): 449-458. [PubMed]
6. Beland MD, Walle NL, Machan JT, Cronan JJ. Renal cortical thickness measured at ultrasound: is it better than renal length as an indicator of renal function in chronic kidney disease?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W146–W149.
7. Siddappa J K, Singla S , Ameen MA, Rakshith SC, and Kumar N . Correlation of Ultrasonographic Parameters with Serum Creatinine in Chronic Kidney Disease. J Clin Imaging Sci 2013; 3: 28. Published online 2013 Jun 30. doi: 10.4103/2156-7514.114809.
8. Trinchieri A. Epidemiology of urolithiasis: an update. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab 2008; 5(2):101-6. [PubMed]
9. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 2010;12(2-3):e86-96. [PubMed]
10. Lingeman JE, Lifshitz DA and Evan PA. Surgical management of urinary lithiasis. In: Retik AB, Vaghan ED Jr and Wein AJ. Campbell’s urology. 8th edition Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002.3361-3451.
11. Budau M, Chira I, Ambert V, Pascu M, Radu M, Onu M, et al. Can we renounce performing the intravenous urography in the preoperative evaluation for ESWL treatment?. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2002; 74(2): 57-58.
12. Dalla-Palma L, Bazzocchi M, Pozzi-Mucelli RS, Stacul F, Rossi M and Agostini R. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of hydronephrosis in patients with normal renal function. Urol Radiol 1983; 5(4): 221-226. [PubMed]
13. Coz F, Orvieto M, Bustos M, Lyng R, Stein C, Hinrichs A, et al. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of 2000 urinary calculi with the Modulith SL-20: success and failure according to size and location of stones. J Endourol 2000; 14(3): 239-246. [PubMed]
14. Dretler SP. Stone fragility: a new therapeutic distinction. J Urol 1988; 139(5): 1124-1127. [PubMed]
15. Gupta NP, Singh DV, Hemal AK and Mandal S. Infundibulopelvic anatomy and clearance of inferior caliceal calculi with shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2000; 163: 24-27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67964-5.
16. Politis G and Griffith DP. Stone free efficacy based upon stone size and location. Word J Urol 2000; 5: 255-258.
17. Cheung MC, Leung YL, Wong BBW, Chu SM, Lee F and Tam PC: Prospective study on ultrasonography plus plain radiography in predicting residual obstruction after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Urology 2002; 59: 340-343.
18. Dalla-Palma L, Stacul F, Bazzocchi M, Pagnan L, Festini G and Marega D. Ultrasonography and plain film versus intravenous urography in ureteric colic. Clin Radiol 1993; 47(5): 333-336. [PubMed]
19. Lewis-Jones HG, Lamb G. HR and Hughes PL. Can Ultrasound replace the intravenous urogram in preliminary investigation of renal tract disease? A prospective study. BJR 1989; 62: 977-980.
20. Diament MJ and Malekzadeh M. Ultrasound and the diagnosis of renal and ureteral calculi. J Pediatr 1986; 109(6): 980-983.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
