Department of Urology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norfolk, UK.
BJU Int. 2014 Apr;113(4):610-4. doi: 10.1111/bju.12456. Epub 2014 Jan 15.
To determine the optimal method for assessing stone volume, and thus stone burden, by comparing the accuracy of scalene, oblate, and prolate ellipsoid volume equations with three-dimensional (3D)-reconstructed stone volume. Kidney stone volume may be helpful in predicting treatment outcome for renal stones. While the precise measurement of stone volume by 3D reconstruction can be accomplished using modern computer tomography (CT) scanning software, this technique is not available in all hospitals or with routine acute colic scanning protocols. Therefore, maximum diameters as measured by either X-ray or CT are used in the calculation of stone volume based on a scalene ellipsoid formula, as recommended by the European Association of Urology.
In all, 100 stones with both X-ray and CT (1-2-mm slices) were reviewed. Complete and partial staghorn stones were excluded. Stone volume was calculated using software designed to measure tissue density of a certain range within a specified region of interest. Correlation coefficients among all measured outcomes were compared. Stone volumes were analysed to determine the average 'shape' of the stones.
The maximum stone diameter on X-ray was 3-25 mm and on CT was 3-36 mm, with a reasonable correlation (r = 0.77). Smaller stones (<9 mm) trended towards prolate ellipsoids ('rugby-ball' shaped), stones of 9-15 mm towards oblate ellipsoids (disc shaped), and stones >15 mm towards scalene ellipsoids. There was no difference in stone shape by location within the kidney.
As the average shape of renal stones changes with diameter, no single equation for estimating stone volume can be recommended. As the maximum diameter increases, calculated stone volume becomes less accurate, suggesting that larger stones have more asymmetric shapes. We recommend that research looking at stone clearance rates should use 3D-reconstructed stone volumes when available, followed by prolate, oblate, or scalene ellipsoid formulas depending on the maximum stone diameter.
通过比较三维(3D)重建结石体积与斜长、扁长和长扁椭圆体积方程的准确性,确定评估结石体积(即结石负担)的最佳方法。肾结石体积有助于预测肾结石的治疗效果。虽然现代计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描软件可以精确测量结石体积,但并非所有医院都具备该技术,也并非所有常规急性绞痛扫描方案都能应用该技术。因此,欧洲泌尿外科学会推荐根据斜长椭圆公式,使用 X 射线或 CT 测量的最大直径来计算结石体积。
共回顾了 100 颗既有 X 射线又有 CT(1-2mm 切片)的结石。排除了完全性和部分鹿角形结石。使用专门设计的软件来测量特定感兴趣区域内一定范围内的组织密度,计算结石体积。比较所有测量结果的相关系数。分析结石体积以确定结石的平均“形状”。
X 射线上的最大结石直径为 3-25mm,CT 上为 3-36mm,相关性较好(r=0.77)。较小的结石(<9mm)呈长扁椭圆体(橄榄球状),9-15mm 的结石呈扁长椭圆体(盘状),>15mm 的结石呈斜长椭圆体。肾结石在肾脏内的位置不同,结石形状也无差异。
由于肾结石的平均形状随直径而变化,因此无法推荐用于估算结石体积的单一方程。随着最大直径的增加,计算出的结石体积准确性降低,提示较大的结石形状更不对称。我们建议,在有条件的情况下,研究结石清除率的研究应使用 3D 重建的结石体积,然后根据最大结石直径使用长扁椭圆体、扁长椭圆体或斜长椭圆体公式。