Limitations of ultrasound compared with computed tomography for kidney stone surveillance

Authors

  • Ryan Sun Stanford University, Department of Urology
  • Elijah Sommer Stanford University, School of Medicine
  • Calyani Ganesan Stanford University, Department of Nephrology
  • Alan C. Pao Stanford University, Department of Nephrology
  • Joseph Liao Stanford University, Department of Urology
  • John Leppert Stanford University, Department of Urology
  • Helena Chang Stanford University, Department of Urology
  • Simon Conti Stanford University, Department of Urology
  • Timothy Chang Stanford University, Department of Urology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9043

Keywords:

nephrolithiasis, ultrasound, computed tomography, imaging, surveillance

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Renal ultrasound (US) offers less radiation exposure than computed tomography (CT) for kidney stone surveillance but has lower sensitivity and specificity for nephrolithiasis diagnosis. Additionally, US may overestimate stone size, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. Evidence on US performance for kidney stone surveillance is variable, making its clinical utility unclear. We aimed to assess US accuracy against CT and identify factors influencing US performance.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with known nephrolithiasis seen in urology clinic at Stanford who underwent both renal US and CT within 90 days for surveillance from January to December 2022. Patients with spontaneous stone passage or interventions were excluded. Stone characteristics were recorded, and statistical analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of US and CT.

RESULTS: A total of 107 patients and 128 stones were included, with a mean time difference of 25.7 days between US and CT. US sensitivity was 77%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75% for stone detection. The PPV was only 59% for stones >4 mm by CT. Mean stone size was 8.7 mm on US vs. 5.5 mm on CT (p=0.02), with more pronounced overestimation in smaller stones and higher body mass index (BMI) (p<0.05). No significant differences in US performance were found by stone location, laterality, or time between scans. Differences in stone detection (p=0.01) and size (p=0.03) were associated with the individual performing the ultrasound.

CONCLUSIONS: US performance is limited compared to CT and is influenced by stone size, BMI, and sonographer. Overestimation by US may lead to unnecessary interventions in up to 40% of patients with stones >4 mm.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2025-03-17

How to Cite

Sun, R., Sommer, E., Ganesan, C., Pao, A. C., Liao, J., Leppert, J., … Chang, T. (2025). Limitations of ultrasound compared with computed tomography for kidney stone surveillance. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(7), E229–37. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.9043

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 7 (2025): CUAJ July

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.