Are renal stone protocol computed tomography reports giving us enough information?


Journal

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
ISSN: 1911-6470
Titre abrégé: Can Urol Assoc J
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101312644

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline: 19 6 2024
pubmed: 19 6 2024
entrez: 19 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) is the gold-standard diagnostic test for urolithiasis. Little is published regarding which information needs to be included in the report for it to be most useful to the healthcare team for efficient triage and high-quality patient care. This study aimed to assess the quality and variability of CT scan reporting at a single Canadian tertiary academic medical center. We completed a retrospective review of 100 consecutive renal colic CT scans. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency with which specific elements commonly used by urologists to triage and treat patients were included in radiology reports. Our sample had a mean age of 51.4±13.1 years. Stone size was universally reported for obstructing stones but was less frequently reported for non-obstructing stones (100% vs. 86.8%). A similar trend was observed for the exact stone number (100% vs. 93.4%). Non-obstructing stones were more likely than obstructing stones to be reported in one dimension (77.5% vs. 47%). Obstructing stones were reported in three dimensions 27% of the time. CT reports commonly include the presence or absence of hydronephrosis status (98%) but are less likely to include renal size (32%) and periureteral stranding (16%). Hounsfield units (HU) were reported in 3% of the reports, but skin-to-stone distance (SSD) and radiation dose were never reported. Reports routinely included assessments of stone size, location, and number (although not uniformly). HU, SSD, and radiation dose were rarely reported. This provides insight into opportunities for standardized reporting to optimize knowledge transfer that may result in clinical efficiency and improved quality of patient care.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38896479
pii: cuaj.8739
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.8739
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Conrad Bayley (C)

Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

David B Hogarth (DB)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Red Deer Regional Hospital, Red Deer, AB, Canada.

Ryan McLarty (R)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Windsor Regional Hospital, Windsor, ON, Canada.

Shubha De (S)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Trevor Schuler (T)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

Classifications MeSH