Journals / Endoüroloji Bülteni / 2026 / Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3

Diagnostic Value of Dual-Energy CT Attenuation Ratios for Urinary Stone Characterization in Patients Presenting with Acute Abdominal Pain

Akut Karın Başvurularında Üriner Taş Karakterizasyonunda Dual-Enerji BT Atenüasyon Oranlarının Tanısal Değeri

Mustafa Yeşilyurt(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-7605-4940
Abdulmecit Kantarcı(ATATÜRK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1043-6719
Pages
239–248
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings support the clinical utility of DECT for non-invasive stone characterization in the emergency setting.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate attenuation ratios derived from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain who were diagnosed with urinary stone disease, and to analyze their distribution among different stone categories in a real-world emergency setting.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 210 consecutive adult patients presenting with acute abdominal pain underwent DECT examination.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings support the clinical utility of DECT for non-invasive stone characterization in the emergency setting.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:tomografi · X-ışınlı bilgisayarlı · üriner kalküller

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate attenuation ratios derived from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain who were diagnosed with urinary stone disease, and to analyze their distribution among different stone categories in a real-world emergency setting. Materials and Methods: This prospective single-center study was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary referral hospital. A total of 210 consecutive adult patients presenting with acute abdominal pain underwent DECT examination. Among these, 56 patients diagnosed with urolithiasis on non-contrast DECT were included in the final analysis. Attenuation values were measured at 80 kVp and 140 kVp, and attenuation ratios were calculated. Stone size, localization, and number were recorded. Differences among stone types were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA or the Kruskal-Wallis test, depending on the normality of data distribution. Post-hoc comparisons were performed using Bonferroni or Games-Howell tests based on the homogeneity of variances. Results: The mean attenuation ratio across all stones was 1.32 ± 0.20. Uric acid stones demonstrated the lowest mean attenuation ratio (0.96 ± 0.09), whereas hydroxyapatite (1.54 ± 0.07) and calcium oxalate stones (1.40 ± 0.05) showed significantly higher values (p < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were observed among stone categories in terms of low-energy attenuation, high-energy attenuation, and attenuation ratios (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding age or stone size. Distinct clustering patterns were observed, particularly between uric acid and calcium-containing stones. Conclusion: DECT-derived attenuation ratios demonstrated significant differentiation among urinary stone types in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain. These findings support the clinical utility of DECT for non-invasive stone characterization in the emergency setting.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, akut karın ağrısı ile başvuran ve üriner taş hastalığı tanısı alan hastalarda dual enerji bilgisayarlı tomografi (DEBT) ile elde edilen atenüasyon oranlarının değerlendirilmesi ve farklı taş tipleri arasındaki dağılımının gerçek yaşam acil servis pratiğinde analiz edilmesi amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu prospektif, tek merkezli çalışmada üçüncü basamak bir hastanenin acil servisinde akut karın ağrısı nedeniyle dual-enerji bilgisayarlı tomografi (DEBT) uygulanan 210 ardışık erişkin hasta değerlendirildi. Non-kontrast DEBT’de ürolitiazis saptanan 56 hasta analize dahil edildi. Taşların 80 kVp ve 140 kVp düzeylerindeki atenüasyon değerleri ölçülerek atenüasyon oranları hesaplandı. Taş boyutu, lokalizasyonu ve sayısı kaydedildi. Sürekli değişkenlerin normal dağılıma uygunluğu Shapiro-Wilk ve Kolmogorov-Smirnov testleri ile incelendi. Taş tipleri arasındaki farkların analizinde, parametrik varsayımların karşılandığı durumlarda Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi (ANOVA), karşılanmadığı durumlarda ise Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanıldı. Gruplar arası ikili karşılaştırmalarda (post-hoc), varyansların homojenliğine göre Bonferroni veya Games-Howell testleri tercih edildi. Bulgular: Tüm taşlarda ortalama atenüasyon oranı 1,32 ± 0,20 olarak bulundu. Ürik asit taşları en düşük ortalama atenüasyon oranını gösterirken (0,96 ± 0,09), hidroksiapatit (1,54 ± 0,07) ve kalsiyum oksalat taşlarında anlamlı derecede daha yüksek oranlar saptandı (p < 0,001). Taş tipleri arasında düşük enerji, yüksek enerji atenüasyon değerleri ve atenüasyon oranları açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık vardı (p < 0,001). Yaş ve taş boyutu açısından anlamlı fark izlenmedi. Özellikle ürik asit ve kalsiyum içeren taşlar arasında belirgin kümelenme gözlendi. Sonuçlar: DEBT ile elde edilen atenüasyon oranları, akut karın ağrısı ile başvuran hastalarda üriner taş tiplerinin ayırımında anlamlı farklılık göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, acil servis pratiğinde non-invaziv taş karakterizasyonunda DEBT’nin klinik değerini desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yeşilyurt, M., Kantarcı, A. (2026). Diagnostic Value of Dual-Energy CT Attenuation Ratios for Urinary Stone Characterization in Patients Presenting with Acute Abdominal Pain. Endoüroloji Bülteni, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 3, 239–248. https://doi.org/10.54233/endourolbull-1896965

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, Rodgers A, Talati J, et al. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1301–1320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6
  2. Smith-Bindman R, Aubin C, Bailitz J, Bengiamin RN, Camargo CA Jr, et al. Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(12):1100–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1404446
  3. Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, Fischer J, Harmon W. Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology. 2001;58(2):170–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01115-3
  4. Graser A, Johnson TR, Bader M, Staehler M, Haseke N, et al. Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol. 2008;43(2):112–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318157a144
  5. Stolzmann P, Scheffel H, Rentsch K, Schertler T, Frauenfelder T, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography for the differentiation of uric acid stones: ex vivo performance evaluation. Urol Res. 2008;36(3-4):133–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-008-0140-x
  6. Graser A, Johnson TRC, Chandarana H, Macari M. Dual energy CT: preliminary observations and potential clinical applications in the abdomen. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(1):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1122-7
  7. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, Dzyubak OP, Lieske JC, et al. Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol. 2007;14(12):1441–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2007.09.016
  8. Ferrandino MN, Pierre SA, Simmons WN, Paulson EK, Albala DM, et al. Dual-energy computed tomography with advanced postimage acquisition data processing: improved determination of urinary stone composition. J Endourol. 2010;24(3):347–354. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0193
  9. Boll DT, Patil NA, Paulson EK, Merkle EM, Simmons WN, et al. Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition—pilot study. Radiology. 2009;250(3):813–820. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503080545
  10. McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG. Dual- and Multi-Energy CT: Principles, Technical Approaches, and Clinical Applications. Radiology. 2015;276(3):637–653. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142631
  11. Fielding JR, Silverman SG, Samuel S, Zou KH, Loughlin KR. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: a replacement for excretory urography in planning treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171(4):1051–1053. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.4.9762995
  12. Feng P, Li G, Liang P. The value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the diagnosis of urinary calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies. PeerJ. 2023;11:e16076. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16076
  13. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(2):305–311. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800305
  14. Karçaaltincaba M, Aktas A. Dual-energy CT revisited with multidetector CT: review of principles and clinical applications. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2011;17(3):181–194. https://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.3860-10.0
  15. Heye T, Nelson RC, Ho LM, Marin D, Boll DT. Dual-energy CT applications in the abdomen. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(5 Suppl):S64–S70. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9196