TY - JOUR
T1 - Absolute hounsfield unit measurement on noncontrast computed tomography cannot accurately predict struvite stone composition
AU - Marchini, Giovanni Scala
AU - Gebreselassie, Surafel
AU - Liu, Xiaobo
AU - Pynadath, Cindy
AU - Snyder, Grace
AU - Monga, Manoj
PY - 2013/2/1
Y1 - 2013/2/1
N2 - Background: The purpose of our study was to determine, in vivo, whether single-energy noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) can accurately predict the presence/percentage of struvite stone composition. Methods: We retrospectively searched for all patients with struvite components on stone composition analysis between January 2008 and March 2012. Inclusion criteria were NCCT prior to stone analysis and stone size ≥4 mm. A single urologist, blinded to stone composition, reviewed all NCCT to acquire stone location, dimensions, and Hounsfield unit (HU). HU density (HUD) was calculated by dividing mean HU by the stone's largest transverse diameter. Stone analysis was performed via Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. Independent sample Student's t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare HU/HUD among groups. Spearman's correlation test was used to determine the correlation between HU and stone size and also HU/HUD to % of each component within the stone. Significance was considered if p<0.05. Results: Fourty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Struvite was the most prevalent component with mean percentage of 50.1%±17.7%. Mean HU and HUD were 820.2±357.9 and 67.5±54.9, respectively. Struvite component analysis revealed a nonsignificant positive correlation with HU (R=0.017; p=0.912) and negative with HUD (R=-0.20; p=0.898). Overall, 3 (6.8%) had <20% of struvite component; 11 (25%), 25 (56.8%), and 5 (11.4%) had 21% to 40%, 41% to 60%, and 61% to 80% of struvite, respectively. ANOVA revealed no difference among groups regarding HU (p=0.68) and HUD (p=0.37), with important overlaps. When comparing pure struvite stones (n=5) with other miscellaneous stones (n=39), no difference was found for HU (p=0.09) but HUD was significantly lower for pure stones (27.9±23.6 v 72.5±55.9, respectively; p=0.006). Again, significant overlaps were seen. Conclusions: Pure struvite stones have significantly lower HUD than mixed struvite stones, but overlap exists. A low HUD may increase the suspicion for a pure struvite calculus.
AB - Background: The purpose of our study was to determine, in vivo, whether single-energy noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) can accurately predict the presence/percentage of struvite stone composition. Methods: We retrospectively searched for all patients with struvite components on stone composition analysis between January 2008 and March 2012. Inclusion criteria were NCCT prior to stone analysis and stone size ≥4 mm. A single urologist, blinded to stone composition, reviewed all NCCT to acquire stone location, dimensions, and Hounsfield unit (HU). HU density (HUD) was calculated by dividing mean HU by the stone's largest transverse diameter. Stone analysis was performed via Fourier transform infrared spectrometry. Independent sample Student's t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare HU/HUD among groups. Spearman's correlation test was used to determine the correlation between HU and stone size and also HU/HUD to % of each component within the stone. Significance was considered if p<0.05. Results: Fourty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Struvite was the most prevalent component with mean percentage of 50.1%±17.7%. Mean HU and HUD were 820.2±357.9 and 67.5±54.9, respectively. Struvite component analysis revealed a nonsignificant positive correlation with HU (R=0.017; p=0.912) and negative with HUD (R=-0.20; p=0.898). Overall, 3 (6.8%) had <20% of struvite component; 11 (25%), 25 (56.8%), and 5 (11.4%) had 21% to 40%, 41% to 60%, and 61% to 80% of struvite, respectively. ANOVA revealed no difference among groups regarding HU (p=0.68) and HUD (p=0.37), with important overlaps. When comparing pure struvite stones (n=5) with other miscellaneous stones (n=39), no difference was found for HU (p=0.09) but HUD was significantly lower for pure stones (27.9±23.6 v 72.5±55.9, respectively; p=0.006). Again, significant overlaps were seen. Conclusions: Pure struvite stones have significantly lower HUD than mixed struvite stones, but overlap exists. A low HUD may increase the suspicion for a pure struvite calculus.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873927151&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84873927151&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1089/end.2012.0470
DO - 10.1089/end.2012.0470
M3 - Article
C2 - 22974047
AN - SCOPUS:84873927151
SN - 0892-7790
VL - 27
SP - 162
EP - 167
JO - Journal of Endourology
JF - Journal of Endourology
IS - 2
ER -