title: Imaging in pediatric urolithiasis-what's the best choice?
abstract: The incidence of urolithiasis increased dramatically during the last decades in adults as well as in children. Today, when a urinary stone is suspected, the imaging modality used most frequently is non-contrast enhanced computed tomography (NCCT). Due to the high sensitivity and specifity, NCCT is regarded as the gold standard. Its major drawback is the high dose of radiation administered with this examination. This is of special concern in children. Children with urinary stones are at high risk for multiple recurrences during their life. NCCT increases the risk for abdominal and pelvic cancer in children significantly. With respect to therapeutic success, however, conventional imaging modalities like ultrasound are not inferior and are without any harm. Therefore, ultrasound is recommended as the primary imaging technique in children by several guidelines. Nevertheless, as could be shown by Tasian et al., ultrasound was the first imaging study in only 24% of children with urolithiasis. NCCT was the modality used most frequently (63%) in the USA between 2003 and 2011. There was a wide regional variation within the USA with highest CT use in the Northwestern and Southern and lowest in the New England states. It is hypothesized that engrained practice patterns and specific local medical resources as well as a lower confidence in ultrasound with its operator dependence are potential reasons. Regarding the fact that ultrasonography is highly reliable in the diagnosis of urolithiasis and is without any harm, it is essential to make all efforts to increase the adherence to the guidelines.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Regiomed Kliniken, Klinikum Coburg, Academic Hospital of the Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg, Germany.
authors.forename: Walter Ludwig
authors.initials: WL
authors.lastname: Strohmaier
keywords: Pediatric urolithiasis; computed tomography; imaging; renal stones; ultrasound
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 15;105(28):9841-6
references.pmid: 18626008
references.citation: Clin Radiol. 1999 Jul;54(7):444-7
references.pmid: 10437695
references.citation: Am J Emerg Med. 2003 Mar;21(2):152-4
references.pmid: 12671819
references.citation: Urol Res. 2005 May;33(2):99-104
references.pmid: 15645229
references.citation: J Endourol. 2003 Dec;17 (10 ):847-50
references.pmid: 14744346
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 1998;8(2):212-7
references.pmid: 9477267
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2003 Nov;13(11):2513-20
references.pmid: 12898174
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 18;371(12 ):1100-10
references.pmid: 25229916
references.citation: J Radiol. 2004 May;85(5 Pt 1):619-25
references.pmid: 15205653
references.citation: Urology. 2011 Sep;78(3):662-6
references.pmid: 21722946
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2001 Oct;74(886):901-4
references.pmid: 11675305
references.citation: J Endourol. 2003 Dec;17 (10 ):851-4; discussion 854
references.pmid: 14744347
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Oct;174(4 Pt 1):1413-6
references.pmid: 16145452
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2003 Dec;44(6):709-13
references.pmid: 14644124
references.citation: Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Jul;18(7):699-707
references.pmid: 21762233
references.citation: Radiology. 2000 Apr;215(1):51-4
references.pmid: 10751467
references.citation: Radiology. 1984 Jul;152(1):147-50
references.pmid: 6729105
references.citation: Curr Opin Pediatr. 2008 Jun;20(3):243-7
references.pmid: 18475090
references.citation: Aktuelle Urol. 2004 Aug;35(4):307-9
references.pmid: 15459870
references.citation: J Urol. 2012 Jul;188(1):247-52
references.pmid: 22595060
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2014 Nov;134(5):909-15
references.pmid: 25349323
references.citation: Pediatrics. 2009 Sep;124(3):888-94
references.pmid: 19661055
references.citation: Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Apr;27(4):345-50
references.pmid: 21467891