Utilization of Dual-Energy CT versus non contrast CT KUB for planning of Oral Dissolution Therapy for radiolucent stones.
BAUS ePoster online library. Khalifa A. 06/21/21; 319105; p6-7
Disclosure(s): None
Mr. Ahmad Khalifa
REGULAR CONTENT
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Introduction
Dual-energy CT (DECT) was introduced to differentiate stones on the basis of chemical composition. The aim of our review is to assess the value of DECT and conventional CT KUB prior to Oral Dissolution Therapy (ODT) with sodium bicarbonate.
Methods
An analysis was undertaken of radiolucent stones treated using our standardized ODT protocol (2017-2020). Stones were stratified according to the pre-treatment imaging modality used. Group 1 stones were assessed by with non-contrast CT (CT KUB) using Hounsfield Units (HU) to assess suitability for treatment (HU <600). Group 2 stones were assessed by DECT to confirm uric acid composition before treatment. Response after treatment was assessed with CT KUB. Stones were measured at their maximum dimension pre- and post-treatment. Mann Whitney and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the reduction in stone size and stone clearance rates, respectively.
Results
82 stones were analyzed, Group1 n = 46 and Group2 n= 36. A significant reduction in stone size was seen after treatment in each group (P<0.001) (table 1). Reduction in stone size was comparable between CT and DECT groups (P>0.05). Stone clearance rates were higher in the DECT group 55.55% (vs 39.13% for CT group), though not statistically significant (p= 0.3).
Conclusions
ODT is an effective treatment for radiolucent stones. Assessment with either CT KUB or DECT before treatment produced comparable outcomes. Although not statistically different there was a higher stone clearance rate in the DECT group. The role of DECT in this context is worthy of further debate.
Dual-energy CT (DECT) was introduced to differentiate stones on the basis of chemical composition. The aim of our review is to assess the value of DECT and conventional CT KUB prior to Oral Dissolution Therapy (ODT) with sodium bicarbonate.
Methods
An analysis was undertaken of radiolucent stones treated using our standardized ODT protocol (2017-2020). Stones were stratified according to the pre-treatment imaging modality used. Group 1 stones were assessed by with non-contrast CT (CT KUB) using Hounsfield Units (HU) to assess suitability for treatment (HU <600). Group 2 stones were assessed by DECT to confirm uric acid composition before treatment. Response after treatment was assessed with CT KUB. Stones were measured at their maximum dimension pre- and post-treatment. Mann Whitney and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the reduction in stone size and stone clearance rates, respectively.
Results
82 stones were analyzed, Group1 n = 46 and Group2 n= 36. A significant reduction in stone size was seen after treatment in each group (P<0.001) (table 1). Reduction in stone size was comparable between CT and DECT groups (P>0.05). Stone clearance rates were higher in the DECT group 55.55% (vs 39.13% for CT group), though not statistically significant (p= 0.3).
Conclusions
ODT is an effective treatment for radiolucent stones. Assessment with either CT KUB or DECT before treatment produced comparable outcomes. Although not statistically different there was a higher stone clearance rate in the DECT group. The role of DECT in this context is worthy of further debate.
Introduction
Dual-energy CT (DECT) was introduced to differentiate stones on the basis of chemical composition. The aim of our review is to assess the value of DECT and conventional CT KUB prior to Oral Dissolution Therapy (ODT) with sodium bicarbonate.
Methods
An analysis was undertaken of radiolucent stones treated using our standardized ODT protocol (2017-2020). Stones were stratified according to the pre-treatment imaging modality used. Group 1 stones were assessed by with non-contrast CT (CT KUB) using Hounsfield Units (HU) to assess suitability for treatment (HU <600). Group 2 stones were assessed by DECT to confirm uric acid composition before treatment. Response after treatment was assessed with CT KUB. Stones were measured at their maximum dimension pre- and post-treatment. Mann Whitney and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the reduction in stone size and stone clearance rates, respectively.
Results
82 stones were analyzed, Group1 n = 46 and Group2 n= 36. A significant reduction in stone size was seen after treatment in each group (P<0.001) (table 1). Reduction in stone size was comparable between CT and DECT groups (P>0.05). Stone clearance rates were higher in the DECT group 55.55% (vs 39.13% for CT group), though not statistically significant (p= 0.3).
Conclusions
ODT is an effective treatment for radiolucent stones. Assessment with either CT KUB or DECT before treatment produced comparable outcomes. Although not statistically different there was a higher stone clearance rate in the DECT group. The role of DECT in this context is worthy of further debate.
Dual-energy CT (DECT) was introduced to differentiate stones on the basis of chemical composition. The aim of our review is to assess the value of DECT and conventional CT KUB prior to Oral Dissolution Therapy (ODT) with sodium bicarbonate.
Methods
An analysis was undertaken of radiolucent stones treated using our standardized ODT protocol (2017-2020). Stones were stratified according to the pre-treatment imaging modality used. Group 1 stones were assessed by with non-contrast CT (CT KUB) using Hounsfield Units (HU) to assess suitability for treatment (HU <600). Group 2 stones were assessed by DECT to confirm uric acid composition before treatment. Response after treatment was assessed with CT KUB. Stones were measured at their maximum dimension pre- and post-treatment. Mann Whitney and Fisher's exact test were employed to compare the reduction in stone size and stone clearance rates, respectively.
Results
82 stones were analyzed, Group1 n = 46 and Group2 n= 36. A significant reduction in stone size was seen after treatment in each group (P<0.001) (table 1). Reduction in stone size was comparable between CT and DECT groups (P>0.05). Stone clearance rates were higher in the DECT group 55.55% (vs 39.13% for CT group), though not statistically significant (p= 0.3).
Conclusions
ODT is an effective treatment for radiolucent stones. Assessment with either CT KUB or DECT before treatment produced comparable outcomes. Although not statistically different there was a higher stone clearance rate in the DECT group. The role of DECT in this context is worthy of further debate.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
{{ help_message }}
{{filter}}