Table 2.
CT stone, noise, and quality characteristics between modalities.
| FBP-CT | IR-CT | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n=250) | (n=90) | ||||
| + Kidney Stone∗ (%) | 221 | (88) | 80 | (89) | p = 0.9 |
| Mean stone diameter, mm (SD) | 5.8 | (1.3) | 5.1 | (1.1) | p = 0.3 |
|
| |||||
| Kidney Stone Morphology (%) | p = 0.75 | ||||
| Single | 192 | (87) | 73 | (91) | |
| Confluence | 16 | (7) | 4 | (5) | |
| Partial staghorn | 3 | (1) | 1 | (1) | |
| Full staghorn | 10 | (5) | 2 | (3) | |
|
| |||||
| + Ureteral Stone (%) | 53 | (22) | 28 | (31) | p = 0.07 |
| Mean stone diameter, mm (SD) | 4.7 | (1.0) | 4.3 | (0.9) | p = 0.4 |
|
| |||||
| + Hydronephrosis (%) | 48 | (22) | 24 | (30) | p = 0.14 |
|
| |||||
| + Bladder Stone (%) | 13 | (5) | 7 | (8) | p = 0.37 |
| Mean stone diameter, mm (SD) | 8.5 (2) | 3.5 | (0.8) | p = 0.09 | |
|
| |||||
| Noise† (%) | p = 0.23 | ||||
| Minimal | 188 | (75) | 61 | (68) | |
| Diagnostic | 60 | (24) | 29 | (32) | |
| Excessive | 2 | (1) | 0 | (0) | |
|
| |||||
| Quality† (%) | p = 0.39 | ||||
| Excellent | 141 | (56) | 42 | (47) | |
| Good | 78 | (31) | 34 | (38) | |
| Acceptable | 29 | (12) | 13 | (14) | |
| Suboptimal | 1 | (1) | 1 | (1) | |
| Poor/Non-diagnostic | 1 | (1) | 0 | (0) | |
Key: CT, computed tomography; FBP, filtered back projection; IR, iterative reconstruction.
SD, standard deviation; ∗: 16 patients had kidney and one other stone location; † = interrater reliability (AC2) was high: AC2 for noise was 0.79, and AC2 for quality was 0.87.