GAO Meng, WU Xiaobei, YE Tao, et al. Preliminary study on measuring the size of kidney stone by acoustic shadow width[J]. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound in Medicine, 2020,22(9):664-668.
GAO Meng, WU Xiaobei, YE Tao, et al. Preliminary study on measuring the size of kidney stone by acoustic shadow width[J]. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound in Medicine, 2020,22(9):664-668. DOI: 10.16245/j.cnki.issn1008-6978.2020.09.008.
超声声影宽度测量肾结石大小的可行性研究
摘要
目的分析超声和声影宽度测量肾结石大小的准确性
探讨结石后方声影宽度测量肾结石大小的可行性。方法回顾性分析49例肾结石患者(51个肾结石)的超声图像和非增强CT图像。根据CT测值将51个结石分为≤5.0 mm 15个、5.1~10.0 mm 20个及>10.0 mm 16个
比较不同大小结石的超声测值、CT测值及其差值。剔除后方无声影的结石14个
余37个结石根据CT测值分为≤5.0 mm 6个、5.1~10.0 mm 15个及>10.0 mm 16个
Objective To analyze the accuracy of ultrasound(US)and acoustic shadow width on measuring the sizeof kidney stone
and to explore the feasibility of measuring kidney stone size by posterior acoustic shadow width.Methods TheUS images and non-enhanced CT images of 51 kidney stones in 49 patients were analyzed retrospectively.Based on CT sizemeasurements
the stones were divided into ≤5.0 mm group(n=15)
5.1~10.0 mm group(n=20)and >10.0 mm group(n=16).The difference between US stone size and CT stone size was compared.Excluding 14 stones without a shadow
the remaining37 stones were divided into ≤5.0 mm group(n=6)
5.1~10.0 mm group(n=15)and >10.0 mm group(n=16)based on CT sizemeasurements. The difference and absolute difference between US stone size
shadow size and CT stone size were compared.Results A total of 51 stones
the average CT stone size was(8.3±4.6)mm
and the average US stone size was(10.1± 4.3)mm.US stone size overestimated CT stone size with a mean bias of(1.8±2.0)mm
and difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The difference between US size and CT size was statistically significant for stones ≤5.0 mm and 5.1~10.0 mm(P=0.001
0.000).After excluding 14 stones without obvious shadow
the shadow size was closer to the CT size than the US sizefor stones ≤5.0 mm and 5.1~10.0 mm
and there were statistically significant differences in the absolute difference between USstone size
shadow size and the CT stone size(P=0.028
0.015).However
the US size was closer to the CT size than the shadowsize for stones >10.0 mm
and there was no significant difference in the absolute difference between US stone size
shadow sizeand the CT stone size(P=0.191).Conclusion Directly measuring the hyperechoic width of the stone by US can overestimate thesize
for stones ≤10.0 mm
measurement of posterior acoustic shadow width of stone is valuable and feasible for improving theaccuracy of ultrasonic measurement of stone size.