Manual kidney stone size measurements in computed tomography are most accurate using multiplanar image reformatations and bone window settings

Computed tomography in suspected urolithiasis provides information about the presence, location and size of stones. Particularly stone size is a key parameter in treatment decision; however, data on impact of reformatation and measurement strategies is sparse. This study aimed to investigate the inf...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2021-08, Vol.11 (1), p.16437-16437, Article 16437
Hauptverfasser: Reimer, Robert Peter, Klein, Konstantin, Rinneburger, Miriam, Zopfs, David, Lennartz, Simon, Salem, Johannes, Heidenreich, Axel, Maintz, David, Haneder, Stefan, Große Hokamp, Nils
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Computed tomography in suspected urolithiasis provides information about the presence, location and size of stones. Particularly stone size is a key parameter in treatment decision; however, data on impact of reformatation and measurement strategies is sparse. This study aimed to investigate the influence of different image reformatations, slice thicknesses and window settings on stone size measurements. Reference stone sizes of 47 kidney stones representative for clinically encountered compositions were measured manually using a digital caliper (Man-M). Afterwards stones were placed in a 3D-printed, semi-anthropomorphic phantom, and scanned using a low dose protocol (CTDI vol 2 mGy). Images were reconstructed using hybrid-iterative and model-based iterative reconstruction algorithms (HIR, MBIR) with different slice thicknesses. Two independent readers measured largest stone diameter on axial (2 mm and 5 mm) and multiplanar reformatations (based upon 0.67 mm reconstructions) using different window settings (soft-tissue and bone). Statistics were conducted using ANOVA ± correction for multiple comparisons. Overall stone size in CT was underestimated compared to Man-M (8.8 ± 2.9 vs. 7.7 ± 2.7 mm, p   0.05), while image reformatations and window settings did ( p  
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-021-95962-z