A Prototype Ultrasound Instrument To Size Stone Fragments During Ureteroscopy

• Published in: Renal Stone Disease 2 (AIP Conference Proceedings Volume 1049) Vol. 1049; pp. 348 - 352
• Main Authors: Sorensen, Mathew D, Teichman, Joel M H, Bailey, Michael R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.01.2008
• ISBN: 0735405778; 9780735405776
• ISSN: 0094-243X
• DOI: 10.1063/1.2998057

An intraoperative tool to measure the size of kidney stones or stone fragments during ureteroscopy would help urologists assess if a fragment is small enough to be removed through the ureter or ureteral access sheath. The goal of this study was to determine the accuracy and precision of a prototype ultrasound device used to measure in vitro stone fragments compared to caliper measurements. A 10-MHz, 10-french ultrasound transducer probe was used to send an ultrasound pulse and receive ultrasound reflections from the stone using two methods. In Method 1 the instrument was aligned over the stone and the ultrasound pulse traveled through the stone. The time between reflections from the proximal and the distal surface of the stone were used along with the sound speed to calculate the stone size. Although the sound speed varied between stones, it was unlikely to be known during surgery and thus was estimated at 3000 m/s for calculations. In Method 2 the instrument was aligned partially over the stone and the ultrasound pulse traveled through water with a sound speed of 1481 m/s. Time was determined between the reflection from the proximal stone surface and the reflection from the tissue phantom on which the stone rested. Methods 1 and 2 were compared by linear regression to caliper measurements of the size of 19 human stones of 3 different stone types. Accuracy was measured by the difference of the mean ultrasound and mean caliper measurement and precision was measured as the standard deviation in the ultrasound measurements. For Method 1, the correlation between caliper-determined stone size and ultrasound-determined stone size was r2 = 0.71 (p < 0.0001). In all but two stones accuracy and precision were less than 1 mm. For Method 2, the correlation was r2 = 0.99 (p < 0.0001) and measurements were accurate and precise to within 0.25 mm. We conclude that the prototype device and either method measure stone size with good accuracy.