Comparison of Turkish Primary, Recurrent, and Non Stone-Forming Patients Using Hounsfield Unit Measurements: How Useful Is It?

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid56641375200
dc.authorscopusid57208864395
dc.authorscopusid57203456091
dc.authorscopusid54885430100
dc.authorscopusid57208864265
dc.authorscopusid56199886800
dc.contributor.authorArda E.
dc.contributor.authorCaklroglu B.
dc.contributor.authorAkdeniz E.
dc.contributor.authorYuksel I.
dc.contributor.authorCetin G.
dc.contributor.authorHilmi Aksoy S.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T10:25:34Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T10:25:34Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: To investigate renal papillae attenuation value differences between controls and stone-forming (SF) patients and to evaluate the impact of mean Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements on the predictivity of stone development. Materials and Methods: We compared papillae attenuation values in SF groups and a healthy stone-free control group. Metabolic evaluations were carried out on 88 primary and 98 recurrent SF patients, and 94 age-matched control patients were included. The papillae tip attenuation was measured using non-enhanced computed tomography scans in HU for an area with a mean size of 0.2 cm 2 . Inclusion criteria to the study were known stone composition (CaOx), unilaterality, and radiological examinations done in our center. Results: In this study, 186 patients who met the criteria and 94 age-matched control patients were divided into 3 groups: the primary SF (Group 1), the recurrent SF group (Group 2), and the control group (Group 3). Metabolic variables which were compared between primary and recurrent SF did not show any significant difference, except urinary volume and phosphorus. The median (interquartile range) value of papillae HU density for the control group was 26.23 (3.84), for primary SF group it was 26.50 (11.25), and for recurrent SF group it was 29 (13). A significant difference in papilla HU levels for each group was found (p = 0.008). Conclusion: This study implied that HU values reflect the severity of the stone disease, although they could not discriminate controls from primary stone formers whose stone forming risk is lower compared to recurrent stone formers. © 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000489435
dc.identifier.endpage163en_US
dc.identifier.issn1661-7649
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85065988318en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US
dc.identifier.startpage158en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1159/000489435
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/16391
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherS. Karger AGen_US
dc.relation.ispartofCurrent Urologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subject[Abstarct Not Available]en_US
dc.titleComparison of Turkish Primary, Recurrent, and Non Stone-Forming Patients Using Hounsfield Unit Measurements: How Useful Is It?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu