Difference between revisions of "CT of kidney stone disease"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(+Author) |
m (ureteric) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{reflist|group="note"| | {{reflist|group="note"| | ||
refs= | refs= | ||
| − | <ref name="Size" group="note"> | + | <ref name="Size" group="note">Ureteric stones less than 5 mm in diameter pass spontaneously in up to 98% of cases, while those measuring 5 to 10 in diameter pass spontaneously in less than 53% of cases.<br> - {{cite journal|last=Gettman|first=MT|last2=Segura|first2=JW|title=Management of ureteric stones: Issues and controversies|journal=British Journal of Urology International|volume=95|issue=Supplement 2|pages=85–93|year=2005|pmid=15720341|doi=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05206.x}}</ref> |
}} | }} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 12:05, 29 May 2018
Author:
Mikael Häggström [notes 1]
Contents
Planning
- Choice of exam: In the acute setting, ultrasonography for urolithiasis is the optimal first investigation rather than CT.[1]
Evaluation
The proper sizing of a stone is most critical at around 5 mm.[note 1]
Notes
- ↑ Ureteric stones less than 5 mm in diameter pass spontaneously in up to 98% of cases, while those measuring 5 to 10 in diameter pass spontaneously in less than 53% of cases.
- Gettman, MT; Segura, JW (2005). "Management of ureteric stones: Issues and controversies ". British Journal of Urology International 95 (Supplement 2): 85–93. doi:. PMID 15720341.
References
- ↑ Smith-Bindman, Rebecca; Aubin, Chandra; Bailitz, John; Bengiamin, Rimon N.; Camargo, Carlos A.; Corbo, Jill; Dean, Anthony J.; Goldstein, Ruth B.; et al. (2014). "Ultrasonography versus Computed Tomography for Suspected Nephrolithiasis ". New England Journal of Medicine 371 (12): 1100–1110. doi:. ISSN 0028-4793.
Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "notes", but no corresponding <references group="notes"/> tag was found, or a closing </ref> is missing
