Cystine: Helical computerized tomography characterization of rough and smooth calculi in vitro

Samuel C. Kim, Erin K. Hatt, James E. Lingeman, Robert B. Nadler, James A. McAteer, James Williams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The classification of cystine stones into rough and smooth varieties has been suggested as an aid to choosing treatment for these difficult stones. Since the surface of stones is difficult to visualize preoperatively, we tested the hypothesis that the surface morphology of cystine stones correlates with their internal structure, as viewed by helical computerized tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Cystine stones were examined visually and categorized into rough (15 stones) and smooth (16 stones) subpopulations of similar size. Each stone was scanned in a helical CT scanner (GE Quad Scanner) to assess radiological characteristics and to measure attenuation values. Scans were also performed using a μCT 20 high resolution laboratory scanner (Scanco Medical AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland) at 34 μm voxel size and the percent of internal voids was determined. Results: Mean helical CT attenuation values ± SD for rough stones were lower than for smooth stones (702 ± 206 vs 921 ± 51 HU, p <0.002) and the radiological appearance of rough stones suggested radiolucent voids. Internal voids in rough stones were confirmed using micro CT. Rough cystine stones contained a higher percent of internal voids (0.30% vs 0.06%, p <0.0001). Conclusions: Rough cystine stones can be distinguished from smooth stones using helical CT in vitro, suggesting that it may be possible to distinguish these stones preoperatively. Since rough cystine stones have been reported to be susceptible to shock wave lithotripsy, the identification of this morphology of cystine stones in the patient using attenuation values and appearance on helical CT could be valuable for planning treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1468-1470
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume174
Issue number4 I
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2005

Fingerprint

Cystine
Calculi
Tomography
Lithotripsy
In Vitro Techniques
Switzerland
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Cystine
  • Kidney
  • Kidney calculi
  • Tomography, x-ray computed

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Cystine : Helical computerized tomography characterization of rough and smooth calculi in vitro. / Kim, Samuel C.; Hatt, Erin K.; Lingeman, James E.; Nadler, Robert B.; McAteer, James A.; Williams, James.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 174, No. 4 I, 10.2005, p. 1468-1470.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kim, Samuel C. ; Hatt, Erin K. ; Lingeman, James E. ; Nadler, Robert B. ; McAteer, James A. ; Williams, James. / Cystine : Helical computerized tomography characterization of rough and smooth calculi in vitro. In: Journal of Urology. 2005 ; Vol. 174, No. 4 I. pp. 1468-1470.
@article{d204561d252a4303bb10bb23e5aa3f06,
title = "Cystine: Helical computerized tomography characterization of rough and smooth calculi in vitro",
abstract = "Purpose: The classification of cystine stones into rough and smooth varieties has been suggested as an aid to choosing treatment for these difficult stones. Since the surface of stones is difficult to visualize preoperatively, we tested the hypothesis that the surface morphology of cystine stones correlates with their internal structure, as viewed by helical computerized tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Cystine stones were examined visually and categorized into rough (15 stones) and smooth (16 stones) subpopulations of similar size. Each stone was scanned in a helical CT scanner (GE Quad Scanner) to assess radiological characteristics and to measure attenuation values. Scans were also performed using a μCT 20 high resolution laboratory scanner (Scanco Medical AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland) at 34 μm voxel size and the percent of internal voids was determined. Results: Mean helical CT attenuation values ± SD for rough stones were lower than for smooth stones (702 ± 206 vs 921 ± 51 HU, p <0.002) and the radiological appearance of rough stones suggested radiolucent voids. Internal voids in rough stones were confirmed using micro CT. Rough cystine stones contained a higher percent of internal voids (0.30{\%} vs 0.06{\%}, p <0.0001). Conclusions: Rough cystine stones can be distinguished from smooth stones using helical CT in vitro, suggesting that it may be possible to distinguish these stones preoperatively. Since rough cystine stones have been reported to be susceptible to shock wave lithotripsy, the identification of this morphology of cystine stones in the patient using attenuation values and appearance on helical CT could be valuable for planning treatment.",
keywords = "Cystine, Kidney, Kidney calculi, Tomography, x-ray computed",
author = "Kim, {Samuel C.} and Hatt, {Erin K.} and Lingeman, {James E.} and Nadler, {Robert B.} and McAteer, {James A.} and James Williams",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1097/01.ju.0000173636.19741.24",
language = "English",
volume = "174",
pages = "1468--1470",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4 I",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cystine

T2 - Helical computerized tomography characterization of rough and smooth calculi in vitro

AU - Kim, Samuel C.

AU - Hatt, Erin K.

AU - Lingeman, James E.

AU - Nadler, Robert B.

AU - McAteer, James A.

AU - Williams, James

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - Purpose: The classification of cystine stones into rough and smooth varieties has been suggested as an aid to choosing treatment for these difficult stones. Since the surface of stones is difficult to visualize preoperatively, we tested the hypothesis that the surface morphology of cystine stones correlates with their internal structure, as viewed by helical computerized tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Cystine stones were examined visually and categorized into rough (15 stones) and smooth (16 stones) subpopulations of similar size. Each stone was scanned in a helical CT scanner (GE Quad Scanner) to assess radiological characteristics and to measure attenuation values. Scans were also performed using a μCT 20 high resolution laboratory scanner (Scanco Medical AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland) at 34 μm voxel size and the percent of internal voids was determined. Results: Mean helical CT attenuation values ± SD for rough stones were lower than for smooth stones (702 ± 206 vs 921 ± 51 HU, p <0.002) and the radiological appearance of rough stones suggested radiolucent voids. Internal voids in rough stones were confirmed using micro CT. Rough cystine stones contained a higher percent of internal voids (0.30% vs 0.06%, p <0.0001). Conclusions: Rough cystine stones can be distinguished from smooth stones using helical CT in vitro, suggesting that it may be possible to distinguish these stones preoperatively. Since rough cystine stones have been reported to be susceptible to shock wave lithotripsy, the identification of this morphology of cystine stones in the patient using attenuation values and appearance on helical CT could be valuable for planning treatment.

AB - Purpose: The classification of cystine stones into rough and smooth varieties has been suggested as an aid to choosing treatment for these difficult stones. Since the surface of stones is difficult to visualize preoperatively, we tested the hypothesis that the surface morphology of cystine stones correlates with their internal structure, as viewed by helical computerized tomography (CT). Materials and Methods: Cystine stones were examined visually and categorized into rough (15 stones) and smooth (16 stones) subpopulations of similar size. Each stone was scanned in a helical CT scanner (GE Quad Scanner) to assess radiological characteristics and to measure attenuation values. Scans were also performed using a μCT 20 high resolution laboratory scanner (Scanco Medical AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland) at 34 μm voxel size and the percent of internal voids was determined. Results: Mean helical CT attenuation values ± SD for rough stones were lower than for smooth stones (702 ± 206 vs 921 ± 51 HU, p <0.002) and the radiological appearance of rough stones suggested radiolucent voids. Internal voids in rough stones were confirmed using micro CT. Rough cystine stones contained a higher percent of internal voids (0.30% vs 0.06%, p <0.0001). Conclusions: Rough cystine stones can be distinguished from smooth stones using helical CT in vitro, suggesting that it may be possible to distinguish these stones preoperatively. Since rough cystine stones have been reported to be susceptible to shock wave lithotripsy, the identification of this morphology of cystine stones in the patient using attenuation values and appearance on helical CT could be valuable for planning treatment.

KW - Cystine

KW - Kidney

KW - Kidney calculi

KW - Tomography, x-ray computed

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944491694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944491694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.ju.0000173636.19741.24

DO - 10.1097/01.ju.0000173636.19741.24

M3 - Article

C2 - 16145473

AN - SCOPUS:24944491694

VL - 174

SP - 1468

EP - 1470

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 4 I

ER -