Subcentimeter Ureteric Calculi on Plain Computed Tomography KUB in Patients Presenting with Renal Colic
Subcentimeter Ureteric Stone Detection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v8i4.1224Keywords:
Subcentimeter Ureteric Calculi, Renal Colic, Pain Distribution, PatientsAbstract
Renal colic, often caused by ureteric stones, is a common and painful condition. Subcentimeter ureteric stones are frequently identified using CT KUB. Understanding the demographics, pain levels, and distribution of these stones can help in better diagnosing, managing and treating the condition. Objective: To determine the prevalence of subcentimeter ureteric calculi in patients who have renal colic. Methods: Between September and December of 2024, a four-month descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out at the Diagnostic Center of CMH, Lahore. The target population included all patients presenting with renal colic, undergoing CT KUB. Sample size of 266 was calculated using WHO calculator and Cochran's formula. Data were collected using proforma and CT KUB reports, and analyzed using IBM SPSS version 26.0. 95% confidence intervals were provided for the results, and statistical tests including the Kruskal-Wallis, Shapiro-Wilk, Mann-Whitney U, and Normality tests were employed. Findings: Patients ranged in age from 18 to 71 years old, with an average age of 43. Results: The majority of patients were between the ages of 20 and 35, with more men (59.8%) than women (40.2%). Pain levels varied, with an average of 5.36 on the visual analog scale. Moderate pain was the most common, experienced by 38.33% of patients. Intermittent pain was more common (68.8%) than continuous pain (31.2%). Dysuria was the most common urination issue (35.71%). Ureteric stones were present in 77.82% of patients, with the right and left renal locations being the most common sites. The most common type of stones found were subcentimeters (60.9%). Conclusions: The distribution of subcentimeter ureteric stones and pain levels in patients with renal colic are described in this study on the identification of ureteric calculi in patients presenting with renal colic on CT KUB. The findings mostly seen in middle aged male patients with intermittent pain, right and left renal calculus were the most common sites and subcentimeter ureteric calculi were frequently observed category. Also describes the other findings like Hydronephrosis, cyst, and peripheral fat.
References
Chowdhury FU, Kotwal S, Raghunathan G, Wah TM, Joyce A, Irving HC. Unenhanced multidetector CT (CT KUB) in the initial imaging of suspected acute renal colic: evaluating a new service. Clinical Radiology. 2007 Oct; 62(10): 970-7. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.04.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.04.016
Ekici S and Sinanoglu O. Comparison of conventional radiography combined with ultrasonography versus nonenhanced helical computed tomography in evaluation of patients with renal colic. Urological Research. 2012 Oct; 40: 543-7. doi: 10.1007/s00240-012-0460-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-012-0460-8
Rekant EM, Gibert CL, Counselman FL. Emergency department time for evaluation of patients discharged with a diagnosis of renal colic: unenhanced helical computed tomography versus intravenous urography. The Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2001 Nov; 21(4): 371-4. doi: 10.1016/S0736-4679(01)00376-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-4679(01)00376-6
Haddad MC, Sharif HS, Shahed MS, Mutaiery MA, Samihan AM, Sammak BM et al. Renal colic: diagnosis and outcome. Radiology. 1992 Jul; 184(1): 83-8. doi: 10.1148/radiology.184.1.1609107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.184.1.1609107
Huang CC, Chuang CK, Wong YC, Wang LJ, Wu CH. Useful prediction of ureteral calculi visibility on abdominal radiographs based on calculi characteristics on unenhanced helical CT and CT scout radiographs. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2009 Feb; 63(2): 292-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01861.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01861.x
Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, Bhojani N, Sukumar S et al. Trends in surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: 1999-2009. Bob Jones University International. 2013 Jul; 112(2). doi: 10.1111/bju.12059. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12059
Itanyi UD, Aiyekomogbon JO, Uduma FU, Evinemi MA. Assessment of ureteric diameter using contrast-enhanced helical abdominal computed tomography. African Journal of Urology. 2020 Dec; 26: 1-5. doi: 10.1186/s12301-020-00021-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00021-0
Sommer FG, Jeffrey Jr RB, Rubin GD, Napel S, Rimmer SA, Benford J et al. Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1995 Sep; 165(3): 509-13. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.3.7645461. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.165.3.7645461
Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. John wiley & sons; 1977.
Chand RB, Shah AK, Pant DK, Paudel S. Common site of urinary calculi in kidney, ureter and bladder region. Nepal Medical College Journal. 2013 Mar; 15(1): 5-7.
Jeevaraman S, Selvaraj J, Niyamathullah NM. A study on ureteric calculi. Journal of International Medical Research. 2016 Oct; 3(10): 2969-72.
Yap WW, Belfield JC, Bhatnagar P, Kennish S, Wah TM. Evaluation of the sensitivity of scout radiographs on unenhanced helical CT in identifying ureteric calculi: a large UK tertiary referral centre experience. The British Journal of Radiology. 2012 Jun; 85(1014): 800-6. doi: 10.1259/bjr/64356303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/64356303
Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ. Abnormal calcifications in the urinary tract. Radiographics. 1998 Nov-Dec; 18(6): 1405–24. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.18.6.9821191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.6.9821191
Brisbane W, Bailey MR, Sorensen MD. An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques. Nature Reviews Urology. 2016 Nov; 13(11): 654–62. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2016.154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2016.154
Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1996 May; 166(5): 97–101. doi: 10.2214/ajr.166.5.8610553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.166.1.8571915
Miller OF and Kane CJ. Time to stone passage for observed ureteral calculi: a guide for patient education. Journal of Urology. 1999 Mar; 161(3): 920–2. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63865-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-199909010-00014
Catalano O. Computed tomography urography: an overview. European Radiology. 2001 Jan; 11(2): 355–65. doi: 10.1007/s003300000598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000685
Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, Bove P, Covey AM, Rosenfield AT et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. Journal of Urology. 1998 Mar; 159(3): 735–40. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63713-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63714-5
Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, Leder RA, Smith RH, Nelson RH. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. Journal of Urology. 1998 Mar; 159(3): 735–40. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63713-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62754-X
Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995 Apr; 194(1): 789–94. doi: 10.1148/radiology.194.3.7862995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.194.3.7862980
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Pakistan BioMedical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For comments editor@pakistanbmj.com
