Investigative and clinical urology · 2017
Radiological noninvasive assessment of ureteral stone impaction into the ureteric wall: A critical evaluation with objective radiological parameters.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elibol Ozlem, Safak Kadihan Yalcin, Buz Ayse, Eryildirim Bilal, Erdem Kutluhan, Sarica Kemal
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine the predictive value of certain radiological parameters for an objective asssessment of the presence of ureteral stone impaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with a single proximal ureteral stones were retrieved from the departmental database. Both clinical and particularly radiological data of all cases were well evaluated on this aspect. In addition to the time period between the first colic attack and definitive management; diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, longitudinal and transverse stone size, Hounsfied unit (HU) of the stone and lastly ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site were all carefully evaluated and noted.
RESULTS: Patients had a single proximal ureteral stone. While mean age of the cases was ranged 20 to 78 years; mean stone size was 15.62±4.26 mm. Evaluation of our data demonstrated that although there was a statistically significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and patients age, transverse diameter of the stone, ureteral diameter just proximal to the stone, renal pelvic diameter and the duration of renal colic attacks; no correlation could be demonstrated between patients sex and the HU of the stone.
CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of the presence and degree of proximal ureteral stone impaction is a challenging issue and our data indicated a highly significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and the some certain radiological as well as clinical parameters evaluated which will give an objective information about the presence of impaction which may in turn be helpful in the follow-up and also management plans of such calculi.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine patients with a single proximal ureteral stones were retrieved from the departmental database. Both clinical and particularly radiological data of all cases were well evaluated on this aspect. In addition to the time period between the first colic attack and definitive management; diameter of proximal ureter and renal pelvis, longitudinal and transverse stone size, Hounsfied unit (HU) of the stone and lastly ureteral wall thickness at the impacted stone site were all carefully evaluated and noted.
RESULTS: Patients had a single proximal ureteral stone. While mean age of the cases was ranged 20 to 78 years; mean stone size was 15.62±4.26 mm. Evaluation of our data demonstrated that although there was a statistically significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and patients age, transverse diameter of the stone, ureteral diameter just proximal to the stone, renal pelvic diameter and the duration of renal colic attacks; no correlation could be demonstrated between patients sex and the HU of the stone.
CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of the presence and degree of proximal ureteral stone impaction is a challenging issue and our data indicated a highly significant correlation between ureteral wall thickness and the some certain radiological as well as clinical parameters evaluated which will give an objective information about the presence of impaction which may in turn be helpful in the follow-up and also management plans of such calculi.