İbrahim Çağrı TURAL, Nursel YURTTUTAN, Murat BAYKARA, Betül KIZILDAĞ

Distal üreter taşı ile flebolit ayrımında bilgisayarlı tomografi histogram analizinin yerinin araştırılması

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı; taş protokollü abdomen bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT)'de, distal üreter taşı ile flebolit ayrımının yapılamadığı durumlarda, ilgi alanı (İA) ile histogram analizi yönteminin bu iki durumu ayırt edebilmekteki yerinin araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Tomografilerinde distal üreter taşı bulunan 100 erişkin hasta (>16 yaş) ile pelvik fleboliti bulunan 100 erişkin hasta seçildi. Üreter distal 1/3 kesimde görülen ≥3 mm taş ve ≥3 mm pelvik fleboliti olan hastalar çalışmaya dâhil edildi. Histogram analizi için İA ölçümü el çizim aracı kullanılarak, sınırları en net seçilebilen kenarlardan en geniş boyutta ölçülerek Hounsfield Unit (HU) değeri elde edildi. İlgi alanı içindeki her bir piksel için ölçülen X-ışını atenüasyon değerlerinin istatistiksel hesaplamaları yapıldı. Bulgular: Histogram analizinde hesaplanan 13 farklı parametre iki grup arasında karşılaştırıldı. Standart deviyasyon (SD), minimum, maksimum, varyans ve kurtosis değerleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı (p

Investigation of the computerized tomography histogram analysis in distinction of distal ureteral stone and pelvic phlebolith

Aim: The aim of our study is to investigate the efficacy of the region of interest (ROI) and histogram analysis method in cases where distal ureteral stone and phlebolith distinction cannot be made in abdominal computed tomography (CT) with the stone protocol. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 adult patients (> 16 years old) with stones ≥3 seen in the distal third of the ureter on their tomography and 100 adult patients with pelvic phleboliths ≥3 were included in the study. For histogram analysis, the ROI measurement was conducted at the largest dimension with the most selectable edges using the hand-drawing tool. Results: A total of 100 adult patients (> 16 years old) with stones ≥3 seen in the distal third of the ureter on their tomography and 100 adult patients with pelvic phleboliths ≥3 were included in the study. For histogram analysis, the ROI measurement was conducted at the largest dimension with the most selectable edges using the hand-drawing tool. Conclusions: Histogram analysis can be used to differentiate between distal ureteral stone and pelvic phleboliths and may contribute to the diagnosis without additional examination. Keywords: Distal ureteral stone, phleboliths, computed tomography, histogram analysis.

PDF

___

1. Scales CD Jr, Saigal CS, Hanley JM, Dick AW, Setodji CM, Litwin MS; NIDDK Urologic Diseases in America Project. The impact of unplanned postprocedure visits in the management of patients with urinary stones. Surgery. 2014 May; 155 (5): 769-75.
2. Kılınç I, Ozmen CA, Akay H, Uyar A. Comparison of ultrasonography and non-contrast spiral computed tomography findings in the diagnosis of ureter stone disease. Dicle Medical Journal 2007, 34 (2) 82-7.
3. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995 Mar; 194 (3): 789-94.
4. Traubici J, Neitlich JD, Smith RC. Distinguishing pelvic phleboliths from distal ureteral stones on routine unenhanced helical CT: is there a radiolucent center? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Jan; 172 (1): 13-7.
5. Arac M, Celik H, Oner AY, Gultekin S, Gumus T, Kosar S. Distinguishing pelvic phleboliths from distal ureteral calculi: thin-slice CT findings. Eur Radiol. 2005 Jan; 15 (1): 65-70.
6. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Ureterolithiasis: value of the tail sign in differentiating phleboliths from ureteral calculi at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1999 Jun; 211 (3): 619-21.
7. Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Rosenfield AT, Smith RC. Soft-tissue "rim" sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997 Mar; 202 (3): 709-11.
8. Ganeshan B, Panayiotou E, Burnand K, Dizdarevic S, Miles K. Tumour heterogeneity in non-small cell lung carcinoma assessed by CT texture analysis: a potential marker of survival. Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr; 22 (4): 796- 802.
9. Lubner MG, Smith AD, Sandrasegaran K, Sahani DV, Pickhardt PJ. CT Texture Analysis: Definitions, Applications, Biologic Correlates, and Challenges. Radiographics. 2017 Sep-Oct; 37 (5): 1483-503.
10. Park HJ, Lee SM, Song JW, et al. Texture-Based Automated Quantitative Assessment of Regional Patterns on Initial CT in Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Relationship to Decline in Forced Vital Capacity. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Nov; 207 (5): 976-83.
11. Daginawala N, Li B, Buch K, et al. Using texture analyses of contrast enhanced CT to assess hepatic fibrosis. Eur J Radiol. 2016 Mar; 85 (3): 511-7.
12. Lee HJ, Kim KG, Hwang SI, et al. Differentiation of urinary stone and vascular calcifications on non-contrast CT images: an initial experience using computer aided diagnosis. J Digit Imaging. 2010 Jun; 23 (3): 268-76.
13. Mannil M, von Spiczak J, Hermanns T, Alkadhi H, Fankhauser CD. Prediction of successful shock wave lithotripsy with CT: a phantom study using texture analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Jun; 43 (6): 1432-8.
14. Miles KA, Ganeshan B, Hayball MP. CT texture analysis using the filtration-histogram method: what do the measurements mean? Cancer Imaging. 2013 Sep 23; 13 (3): 400-6.