Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Choyke, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Mun, S. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Choyke, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Mun, S. K.

Radiology, Vol 170, 39-44, Copyright © 1989 by Radiological Society of North America


ARTICLES

Renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy: US evaluation with an in vitro phantom

PL Choyke, JH Pahira, WJ Davros, E Nilges, AJ Dwyer and SK Mun
Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.

Fragments of renal calculi from patients who had undergone extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) were embedded in an in vitro tissue-equivalent ultrasound (US) phantom to assess (a) the accuracy with which such fragments could be measured; (b) the influence of stone composition, stone depth, and transducer frequency; and (c) the effect of fragment "clumping" on size determinations and acoustic shadowing. Fragments as small as 0.8 mm in diameter could be detected at 7.5 MHz, although a practical limitation of 1-2 mm for lower transducer frequencies (3.5 and 5.0 MHz) was observed. Fragment diameter tended to be overestimated with US by a mean of 1 mm. Transducers of 5 and 7.5 MHz were more accurate in determination of size than 3.5-MHz transducers. Struvite fragments were less echogenic and were therefore measured more accurately, but smaller struvite fragments were less detectable than other fragment types. Fragment "clumping" led to significant overestimation of residual stone size even when small fragments were separated by as much as the distance equal to the diameter of one fragment. This study demonstrates that even under the best circumstances the disadvantages of US in assessing residual stone disease are significant.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1989 by the Radiological Society of North America.