Tzou David T, Isaacson Dylan, Usawachintachit Manint, Wang Zhen J, Taguchi Kazumi, Hills Nancy K, Hsi Ryan S, Sherer Benjamin A, Reliford-Titus Shalonda, Duty Brian, Harper Jonathan D, Sorensen Mathew, Sur Roger L, Stoller Marshall L, Chi Thomas
Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Department of Urology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Division of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Urology. 2018 Jan;111:59-64. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.002. Epub 2017 Oct 13.
To compare the measured stone burden recorded between urologists and radiologists, and examine how these differences could potentially impact stone management. As current urologic stone surgery guideline recommendations are based on stone size, accurate stone measurements are crucial to direct appropriate treatment. This study investigated the discrepant interpretation that often exists between urologic surgeons and radiologists' estimation of patient urinary stone burden.
From November 2015 through August 2016, new patients prospectively enrolled into the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU) were included if they had computed tomography images available and an accompanying official radiologic report at the time of their urologist provider visit. Stone number and aggregate stone size were compared between the urologic interpretation and the corresponding radiologic reports.
Of 219 patients who met the inclusion criteria, concordance between urologic and radiologic assessment of aggregate stone size was higher for single stone sizing (63%) compared with multiple stones (32%). Statistical significance was found in comparing the mean difference in aggregate stone size for single and multiple stones (P <.01). Over 33% of stone-containing renal units had a radiologic report with an unclear size estimation or size discrepancy that could lead to non-guideline-driven surgical management.
Significant variation exists between urologic and radiologic computed tomography interpretations of stone burden. Urologists should personally review patient imaging when considering stone surgical management. A standardized method for measuring and reporting stone parameters is needed among urologists and radiologists.
比较泌尿外科医生和放射科医生记录的测量结石负荷,并研究这些差异如何可能影响结石治疗。由于当前泌尿外科结石手术指南建议基于结石大小,准确的结石测量对于指导适当的治疗至关重要。本研究调查了泌尿外科医生和放射科医生对患者尿路结石负荷估计之间经常存在的差异解读。
从2015年11月至2016年8月,前瞻性纳入肾脏和输尿管结石登记处(ReSKU)的新患者,如果他们有计算机断层扫描图像,并且在泌尿外科医生就诊时有一份随附的官方放射学报告。比较泌尿外科解读和相应放射学报告之间的结石数量和总结石大小。
在219名符合纳入标准的患者中,单颗结石大小的泌尿外科和放射学评估总结石大小的一致性(63%)高于多颗结石(32%)。在比较单颗和多颗结石总结石大小的平均差异时发现统计学意义(P <.01)。超过33%的含结石肾单位有一份放射学报告,其大小估计不明确或大小存在差异,这可能导致非指南驱动的手术治疗。
泌尿外科和放射科对结石负荷的计算机断层扫描解读之间存在显著差异。泌尿外科医生在考虑结石手术治疗时应亲自查看患者影像。泌尿外科医生和放射科医生之间需要一种标准化的测量和报告结石参数的方法。