Hematuria: Is it useful in predicting renal or ureteral stones in patient presenting to emergency department with flank pain?

Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. Patients and Methods: In total, 604 patients t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mansour Alnazari, Abdulaziz Bakhsh, Hatem Ahmed Shaqroon, Emad S Rajih, Nizar Abdulaziz Al-Nakshabandi, Danny M Rabah
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2024-01-01
Series:Urology Annals
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.urologyannals.com/article.asp?issn=0974-7796;year=2024;volume=16;issue=1;spage=71;epage=74;aulast=Alnazari
Description
Summary:Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. Patients and Methods: In total, 604 patients treated in our emergency department from 2006 to 2011, with a history of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis were included in a retrospective review. All patients were evaluated with a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan and urine analysis. Using the noncontrast CT scan as the gold standard for the evaluation of the presence, number, size, and site (renal or ureteral [upper, middle, and lower]) of the stones, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hematuria for diagnosing both renal and ureteral stones. Results: Urolithiasis was diagnosed in 388 patients (64%) and 216 patients (36%) had no stones on a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for microhematuria were 77%, 33%, 67%, and 45%, respectively. Microhematuria was more common in patients with ureteral stones only (139 patients) and had a sensitivity of 85% compared to patients with renal stones only (32 patients), with a sensitivity of 55% (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the specificity or positive or negative predictive values. Conclusion: Although microhematuria is more sensitive to ureteral stones, the absence of microhematuria does not exclude the possibility of urolithiasis and a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan should be the gold standard diagnostic tool.
ISSN:0974-7796
0974-7834