Urolithiasis: Comparison of diagnostic performance of digital tomosynthesis and ultrasound. Which one to choose and when?. Issue 105 (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sandhu, Manavjit Singh; Gulati, Ajay; Saritha, J.; Nayak, Brusabhanu
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 105(2018)
• Page Start: 25
• Page End: 31
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Urolithiasis -- Digital tomosynthesis -- Ultrasound; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.05.017
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of digital tomosynthesis (DT) in detecting urolithiasis and compare it with ultrasonography (USG), keeping standard volumetric multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) as the reference. Materials and methods: This prospective analytical study was approved by our institutional ethical committee. A total of 66 patients were enrolled who had either clinical suspicion of urolithiasis or history of recurrent urolithiasis. All patients underwent DT, USG and MDCT within 24 h. In all these three investigations, the calculi were categorised according to their location and size by two radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of DT and USG were calculated with MDCT as a reference standard. Results: Our study comprised of 66 patients (36 males and 30 females with age range of 19–73 years). A total of 121 calculi were assessed with 52 calculi <5 mm in size, 32 calculi measuring 5–10 mm and 37 calculi >10 mm. Kappa test of agreement was used to assess the interobserver agreement for all observations. The measurement of agreement kappa value was 1. The overall sensitivity of DT and USG in detecting urolithaisis was 50% (p value <0.001) and 50.4% (p value 0.005) respectively. No statistically significant difference was noted between USG and DT in detecting urolithiasis. The sensitivity of DT and USG in detecting renal calculi was 47.1% and 50.9% respectively and the sensitivity of DT and USG in detecting ureteric calculi was 74.9% and 39.2% respectively. We observed statistically significant difference between USG and DT in detecting ureteric calculi. Conclusion: In our study, there was no statistically significant difference noted between USG and DT in diagnosis of urolithiasis. DT performed significantly better than USG in detecting ureteric calculi with a higher sensitivity. Hence, we are tempted to opine that DT may be preferred over USG for initial evaluation of patients with suspected ureteric calculi. However considering the strength of ultrasound in demonstrating associated signs as hydroureteronephosis, we are still of the opinion, that both DT and USG should be used as complementary techniques in resolving these common clinical screnarios.