Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Title



The aims of this investigation were: (1) to compare residual stone-fragment (RSF) detection rates of ultra-low dose computed tomography (ULD-CT) and abdominal plain film (KUB) in urolithiasis patients undergoing shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL), and (2) to evaluate the downstream sequelae of utilizing these two disparate imaging pathways of differing diagnostic fidelity. A retrospective chart-review of patients undergoing SWL at two high-volume surgical centers was undertaken (2013-2016). RSF diagnostic rates of ULD-CT and KUB were assessed, and the impact of imaging modality used on subsequent emergency room (ER) visits, unplanned procedures, and cost-effectiveness was investigated. Adjusted analyses examined association between imaging modality used and outcomes, and Markov decision-tree analysis was performed to identify a cost advantageous scenario for ULD-CT over KUB. Of 417 patients studied, 57 (13.7%) underwent ULD-CT while the remaining 360 underwent KUB. The RSF rates were 36.8% and 22.8% in the ULD-CT and KUB groups, respectively (p = 0.019). A 5.6% and 18% of the patients deemed stone-free on ULD-CT and KUB, respectively, returned to the ER (p = 0.040). Similarly, 2.8% and 15.1% needed an unplanned surgery (p = 0.027). These findings were confirmed on multivariable analyses, Odds ratios CT-ULD versus KUB: 0.19 and 0.10, respectively, p < 0.05. With regards to cost-effectiveness, at low ULD-CT charges, the ULD-CT follow-up pathway was economically more favorable, but with increasing ULD-CT charges, the KUB follow-up pathway superseded. ULD-CT seems to provide a more 'true' estimate of stone-free status, and in consequence mitigates unwanted emergency and operating room visits by reducing untimely stent removals and false patient reassurances. Further, at low ULD-CT costs, it may also be economically more favorable.

PubMed ID



ePub ahead of print



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.