Use of CT Scout Radiographs in the Management of Urolithiasis

Hajer Alfadeel

doi:10.69667/lmj.2517315

Authors

Hajer Alfadeel Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Omer Almukhtar, Al-Bayda, Libya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5336-2510

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.69667/lmj.2517315

Keywords:

Scout Radiograph, Visible Stones, Non-visible stones, Plain Radiograph, Sensitivity.

Abstract

Unenhanced CT is the gold standard imaging for patients with suspected urolithiasis. The aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity of CT scout radiographs in detecting urinary stones in patients with confirmed urolithiasis on unenhanced CT. A retrospective study was carried out with data collected consecutively from January to November 2021. The included cases were those with confirmed urinary stones on unenhanced CT. CT scout radiographs were read and cross-referenced with unenhanced CT. Stones were classified as visible and non-visible on scout radiographs. The location and size of stones on axial CT were recorded. Means of size of visible and non-visible stones and frequency of detection by scout radiographs between proximal stones and distal stones were tested for significance. 117 stones were analyzed. The sensitivity of CT scout radiographs was 56%. There was a direct correlation between stone size and stone visibility on CT scout radiographs. There was a statistically significant difference between the means of sizes of visible and non-visible stones on scout radiographs (P < 0.001). 54% (41/76) of proximal stones and 59% (24/41) of distal stones were visible on CT scout radiographs. There was no statistically significant difference between visibility and stone location (P = 0.6). Conclusion: CT scout radiography could detect stones in 56% of patients with urolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. Therefore, it could serve as a baseline investigation to detect stone radio-opacity and should be reported in conjunction with the findings of unenhanced CT for guiding treatment/follow-up decision options.

References

Lang J, Narendrula A, El-Zawahry A, Sindhwani P, Ekwenna O. Global trends in incidence and burden of urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: an analysis of global burden of disease study data. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;35:37-46.

Magayr T, Saad S, Abdulsalam F. Antioxidant Capacity of Equisetum telmateia and Urtica dioica: Secondary Benefits in Renal Health Beyond Crystal Inhibition. AlQalam Journal of Medical and Applied Sciences. 2025 Jun 4:1027-31.

Elside M, Elmghirbi W, Alghros M, Benelhaj K. Antilithiatic Activity of Arbutus Pavarii (Shemeri) Extract on Ethylene Glycol Induced Lithiasis in Rats. Khalij-Libya J Dent Med Res. 2023;7(2):129–136. https://doi.org/10.47705/kjdmr.2370210.

Johnston R, Lin A, Du J, Mark S. Comparison of kidney-ureter-bladder abdominal radiography and computed tomography scout films for identifying renal calculi. BJU Int. 2009;104(5):670-673.

Chua ME, Gomez OR, Sapno LD, Lim SL, Morales ML Jr. Use of computed tomography scout film and Hounsfield unit of computed tomography scan in predicting the radio-opacity of urinary calculi in plain kidney, ureter and bladder radiographs. Urol Ann. 2014;6(3):218-223.

Yap WW, Belfield JC, Bhatnagar P, Kennish S, Wah TM. Evaluation of the sensitivity of scout radiographs on unenhanced helical CT in identifying ureteric calculi: a large UK tertiary referral centre experience. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1014):800-806.

Barnsley H, Uzoukwu S, Hassan S, Borri M. The use of low dose CT scouts for MR safety screening: a multi-reader evaluation. Radiography (Lond). 2024;30(1):168-175.

Brook OR, Guralnik L, Engel A. CT scout view as an essential part of CT reading. Australas Radiol. 2007;51(3):211-217.

Ege G, Akman H, Kuzucu K, Yildiz S. Can computed tomography scout radiography replace plain film in the evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic? Acta Radiol. 2004;45(4):469-473.

McCarthy CJ, Baliyan V, Kordbacheh H, Sajjad Z, Sahani D, Kambadakone A. Radiology of renal stone disease. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt D):638-646.

Nickoloff EL, Alderson PO. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(2):285-287.

Chu G, Rosenfield AT, Anderson K, Scout L, Smith RC. Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(2):417-423.

Assi Z, Platt JF, Francis IR, Cohan RH, Korobkin M. Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(2):333-337.

Ordon M, Andonian S, Blew B, Schuler T, Chew B, Pace KT. CUA Guideline: Management of ureteral calculi. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(11-12):E837-851