Limits...
Effective radiation exposure evaluation during a one year follow-up of urolithiasis patients after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Kaynar M, Tekinarslan E, Keskin S, Buldu İ, Sönmez MG, Karatag T, Istanbulluoglu MO - Cent European J Urol (2015)

Bottom Line: There was no statistically significant differences between the kidney and ureter groups in terms of the ERE dose values (p = 0.221) (p >0.05).In the comparison of the kidney and ureter stone groups with the multiple stone location group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) (p <0.05).ERE doses should be a factor to be considered right at the initiation of any diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Urology, Selcuk University, Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: To determine and evaluate the effective radiation exposure during a one year follow-up of urolithiasis patients following the SWL (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) treatment.

Material and methods: Total Effective Radiation Exposure (ERE) doses for each of the 129 patients: 44 kidney stone patients, 41 ureter stone patients, and 44 multiple stone location patients were calculated by adding up the radiation doses of each ionizing radiation session including images (IVU, KUB, CT) throughout a one year follow-up period following the SWL.

Results: Total mean ERE values for the kidney stone group was calculated as 15, 91 mSv (5.10-27.60), for the ureter group as 13.32 mSv (5.10-24.70), and in the multiple stone location group as 27.02 mSv (9.41-54.85). There was no statistically significant differences between the kidney and ureter groups in terms of the ERE dose values (p = 0.221) (p >0.05). In the comparison of the kidney and ureter stone groups with the multiple stone location group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) (p <0.05).

Conclusions: ERE doses should be a factor to be considered right at the initiation of any diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure. Especially in the case of multiple stone locations, due to the high exposure to ionized radiation, different imaging modalities with low dose and/or totally without a dose should be employed in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up bearing the aim to optimize diagnosis while minimizing the radiation dose as much as possible.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Stone location and ionizing radiation imaging numbers.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643697&req=5

Figure 0001: Stone location and ionizing radiation imaging numbers.

Mentions: A total of 129 patients, 42 female and 87 male, were evaluated in the present study. In the kidney stone group there were 44 patients, 14 female and 30 male with a mean age of 43.4 (23-76). In the ureter stone group there were 41 patients, 13 female and 28 male with a mean age of 45.2 (26-73). In the multiple location (renal-renal, renal-ureter, ureter-ureter) group, there were a total of 44 patients, 15 female and 29 male, with a mean age of 46.9 (24-73). The mean number of KUB in the kidney stone group was 6.2 (1-14), in the ureter stone group 4.9 (0-11), and in the multiple location stone group 8.25 (2-18). The mean number of IVU in the kidney stone group was 0.56 (0-1), in the ureter stone group 0.29 (0-1), and in the multiple location group 0.63 (0-3). The mean number of CT scans in the kidney stone group was 0.59 (0-2), in the ureter stone group 0.51 (0-2), and in the multiple location group 1.38 (0-4) (Table 1), (Figure 1). Total mean ERE values for the kidney stone group was calculated as 15.91 mSv (5.10-27.60), for the ureter group as 13.32 mSv (5.10-24.70), and in the multiple stone location group as 27.02 mSv (9.41-54. 85). There were no statistically significant differences between the kidney and ureter groups in terms of ERE dose values (p = 0.221) (p >0.05). In the comparison between the kidney and ureter stone groups with the multiple stone location group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) (p <0.05).


Effective radiation exposure evaluation during a one year follow-up of urolithiasis patients after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Kaynar M, Tekinarslan E, Keskin S, Buldu İ, Sönmez MG, Karatag T, Istanbulluoglu MO - Cent European J Urol (2015)

Stone location and ionizing radiation imaging numbers.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643697&req=5

Figure 0001: Stone location and ionizing radiation imaging numbers.
Mentions: A total of 129 patients, 42 female and 87 male, were evaluated in the present study. In the kidney stone group there were 44 patients, 14 female and 30 male with a mean age of 43.4 (23-76). In the ureter stone group there were 41 patients, 13 female and 28 male with a mean age of 45.2 (26-73). In the multiple location (renal-renal, renal-ureter, ureter-ureter) group, there were a total of 44 patients, 15 female and 29 male, with a mean age of 46.9 (24-73). The mean number of KUB in the kidney stone group was 6.2 (1-14), in the ureter stone group 4.9 (0-11), and in the multiple location stone group 8.25 (2-18). The mean number of IVU in the kidney stone group was 0.56 (0-1), in the ureter stone group 0.29 (0-1), and in the multiple location group 0.63 (0-3). The mean number of CT scans in the kidney stone group was 0.59 (0-2), in the ureter stone group 0.51 (0-2), and in the multiple location group 1.38 (0-4) (Table 1), (Figure 1). Total mean ERE values for the kidney stone group was calculated as 15.91 mSv (5.10-27.60), for the ureter group as 13.32 mSv (5.10-24.70), and in the multiple stone location group as 27.02 mSv (9.41-54. 85). There were no statistically significant differences between the kidney and ureter groups in terms of ERE dose values (p = 0.221) (p >0.05). In the comparison between the kidney and ureter stone groups with the multiple stone location group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) (p <0.05).

Bottom Line: There was no statistically significant differences between the kidney and ureter groups in terms of the ERE dose values (p = 0.221) (p >0.05).In the comparison of the kidney and ureter stone groups with the multiple stone location group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) (p <0.05).ERE doses should be a factor to be considered right at the initiation of any diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Urology, Selcuk University, Faculty of Medicine, Konya, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: To determine and evaluate the effective radiation exposure during a one year follow-up of urolithiasis patients following the SWL (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) treatment.

Material and methods: Total Effective Radiation Exposure (ERE) doses for each of the 129 patients: 44 kidney stone patients, 41 ureter stone patients, and 44 multiple stone location patients were calculated by adding up the radiation doses of each ionizing radiation session including images (IVU, KUB, CT) throughout a one year follow-up period following the SWL.

Results: Total mean ERE values for the kidney stone group was calculated as 15, 91 mSv (5.10-27.60), for the ureter group as 13.32 mSv (5.10-24.70), and in the multiple stone location group as 27.02 mSv (9.41-54.85). There was no statistically significant differences between the kidney and ureter groups in terms of the ERE dose values (p = 0.221) (p >0.05). In the comparison of the kidney and ureter stone groups with the multiple stone location group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) (p <0.05).

Conclusions: ERE doses should be a factor to be considered right at the initiation of any diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure. Especially in the case of multiple stone locations, due to the high exposure to ionized radiation, different imaging modalities with low dose and/or totally without a dose should be employed in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up bearing the aim to optimize diagnosis while minimizing the radiation dose as much as possible.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus