OBJECTIVE:To compare the measured stone burden recorded between urologists and radiologists, and examine how these differences could potentially impact stone management. As current urologic stone surgery guideline recommendations are based on stone size, accurate stone measurements are crucial to direct appropriate treatment. This study investigated the discrepant interpretation that often exists between urologic surgeons and radiologists' estimation of patient urinary stone burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS:From November 2015 through August 2016, new patients prospectively enrolled into the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU) were included if they had computed tomography images available and an accompanying official radiologic report at the time of their urologist provider visit. Stone number and aggregate stone size were compared between the urologic interpretation and the corresponding radiologic reports. RESULTS:Of 219 patients who met the inclusion criteria, concordance between urologic and radiologic assessment of aggregate stone size was higher for single stone sizing (63%) compared with multiple stones (32%). Statistical significance was found in comparing the mean difference in aggregate stone size for single and multiple stones (P <.01). Over 33% of stone-containing renal units had a radiologic report with an unclear size estimation or size discrepancy that could lead to non-guideline-driven surgical management. CONCLUSION:Significant variation exists between urologic and radiologic computed tomography interpretations of stone burden. Urologists should personally review patient imaging when considering stone surgical management. A standardized method for measuring and reporting stone parameters is needed among urologists and radiologists.

Purpose: Kidney stone patients routinely have CT scans during diagnostic work-up before being referred to a tertiary center. How often these patients exceed the recommended dose limits for occupational radiation exposure of >100 mSv for 5 years and >50 mSv in a single year from CT alone remains unknown. This study aimed to quantify radiation doses from CTs received by stone patients before their evaluation at a tertiary care stone clinic. Methods: From November 2015 to March 2017, consecutive new patients enrolled into the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU™) had the dose-length product of every available CT abdomen/pelvis within 5 years of their initial visit recorded, allowing for an effective dose (EDose) calculation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified factors associated with exceeding recommended dose limits. Models were created to test radiation reducing effects of low-dose and phase-reduction CT protocols. Results: Of 343 noncontrast CTs performed, only 29 (8%) were low-dose CTs (calculated EDose <4 mSv). Among 389 total patients, 101 (26%) and 25 (6%) had an EDose >20 mSv and >50 mSv/year, respectively. Increased body mass index, number of scans, and multiphase scans were associated with exceeding exposure thresholds (p < 0.01). The implementation of a low-dose CT protocol decreased the estimated number of scans contributing to overexposure by >50%. Conclusions: Stone patients referred to a tertiary stone center may receive excessive radiation from CT scans alone. Unnecessary phases and underutilization of low-dose CT protocols continue to take place. Enacting new approaches to CT protocols may spare stone patients from exceeding recommended dose limits.