V03-05 Assessment of Stone Volume: A Hands-on Approach Utilizing Three Methods

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrolithiasis/Endourology (V03)1 May 2024V03-05 ASSESSMENT OF STONE VOLUME: A HANDS-ON APPROACH UTILIZING THREE METHODS Grant Sajdak, D. Daniel Baldwin, Ala'a Farkouh, Sikai Song, Ruby Kuang, Akin S. Amasyali, and D. Duane Baldwin Grant SajdakGrant Sajdak , D. Daniel BaldwinD. Daniel Baldwin , Ala'a FarkouhAla'a Farkouh , Sikai SongSikai Song , Ruby KuangRuby Kuang , Akin S. AmasyaliAkin S. Amasyali , and D. Duane BaldwinD. Duane Baldwin View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009524.48282.6c.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The best clinical indicator of stone burden is stone volume, however volume as a metric has not been implemented into mainstream clinical practice. The use of diameter or area, rather than volume, may result in significant inaccuracies in the actual amount of stone treated, making comparisons between studies problematic at best. The continued use of diameter is largely due to a lack of convenient and accurate software for volume determination. Enterprise Imaging is a new program designed to allow rapid calculation of a wide array of anatomic volumes. The purpose of this video was to compare the speed, accuracy, and precision of three modalities for assessing kidney stone volume: the ellipsoid formula, 3D slicer, and Enterprise Imaging. METHODS: This video will compare the ease and accuracy, while detailing the process for volume determination, using the ellipsoid formula, 3D slicer and Enterprise Imaging. To accomplish this, a 3D printed silicone kidney was inserted into a phantom torso with five different BegoStones (calcium oxalate density). Each stone was scanned by CT and ten subjects determined the stone volumes using the ellipsoid formula, 3D slicer, and Enterprise Imaging. Measured stone volumes were compared to volume assessed by water displacement. Accuracy, precision, interrater reliability, and convenience score (Likert scale; 1-10, 10 most convenient) were compared between modalities. RESULTS: Enterprise Imaging provided the most accurate determination of stone volume with mean relative error (MRE) of 4.9%, compared to the ellipsoid formula (MRE 48.3%) and 3D slicer (MRE 10.2%; p0.98 for all) and reliable (intra-class correlation coefficient>0.98 for all). Enterprise imaging was significantly more precise than 3D slicer and the ellipsoid formula (p<0.05). Finally, Enterprise Imaging was subjectively the most convenient method followed by the ellipsoid formula and 3D slicer (8.5, 6.6, 3.6; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This video demonstrates that of the three methods shown, Enterprise Imaging had the fastest volume determination, was the most accurate, and was subjectively the most convenient to use. Use of Enterprise Imaging could standardize stone burden reporting allowing for better comparisons between studies. This could also allow better treatment selection and prediction of operative times and outcomes. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e192 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Grant Sajdak More articles by this author D. Daniel Baldwin More articles by this author Ala'a Farkouh More articles by this author Sikai Song More articles by this author Ruby Kuang More articles by this author Akin S. Amasyali More articles by this author D. Duane Baldwin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...