Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Accurate assessment of stone burden is fundamental in urolithiasis, as it directly influences treatment selection and prognostic evaluation. Although maximum stone diameter on non-contrast computed tomography remains the most widely used parameter, it does not adequately reflect the three-dimensional complexity of urinary calculi. This review aimed to summarize the evolution of stone burden assessment from conventional imaging-based methods to software-assisted volumetry and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools, with emphasis on their accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility.</p> Methods <p>A narrative review of the literature was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published up to March 2026. Original studies, validation studies, technical reports, reviews, and guideline-related papers addressing conventional CT-based measurement, software-assisted volumetry, AI-based stone segmentation, and the clinical significance of stone volume were included. Due to heterogeneity in study design and reported outcomes, the evidence was synthesized narratively.</p> Results <p>Maximum stone diameter remains simple and widely available, but it incompletely represents true stone burden, particularly in larger or irregular stones. Formula-based ellipsoid calculations are practical yet show limited accuracy in complex geometries. Semi-automated CT-based segmentation software provides more reliable volumetric assessment, with excellent agreement with reference standards and reduced interobserver variability. AI-based approaches have further improved efficiency by enabling rapid and highly accurate automated stone detection and volume calculation. Across the reviewed literature, stone volume was consistently shown to be more clinically informative than linear dimensions for predicting spontaneous passage, stone-free rates after shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy, and future symptomatic events during surveillance.</p> Conclusions <p>Stone volume offers a more accurate and clinically meaningful estimate of stone burden than maximum stone diameter alone. The transition from formula-based methods to software-assisted and AI-driven volumetry represents an important advance in urolithiasis imaging. Wider adoption will depend on standardized imaging protocols, improved software accessibility, and validation of volume-based thresholds for routine clinical practice.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

From conventional imaging software to artificial intelligence: tools for stone volume assessment in urolithiasis. Α review by the EAU and YAU sections of endourology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月24日

查看全文
  • Stamatios Katsimperis,
  • Lazaros Tzelves,
  • Patrick Juliebø-Jones,
  • Arman Tsaturyan,
  • Eugenio Ventimiglia,
  • Davide Perri,
  • Matthias Boeykens,
  • Victoria Jahrreiss,
  • Stefano Moretto,
  • Mehmet Fatih Sahin,
  • Alberto Olivero,
  • Łukasz Nowak,
  • Amelia Pietropaolo,
  • Begoña Ballesta Martinez,
  • Bhaskar Somani,
  • Andreas Skolarikos

摘要

Introduction

Accurate assessment of stone burden is fundamental in urolithiasis, as it directly influences treatment selection and prognostic evaluation. Although maximum stone diameter on non-contrast computed tomography remains the most widely used parameter, it does not adequately reflect the three-dimensional complexity of urinary calculi. This review aimed to summarize the evolution of stone burden assessment from conventional imaging-based methods to software-assisted volumetry and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools, with emphasis on their accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility.

Methods

A narrative review of the literature was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published up to March 2026. Original studies, validation studies, technical reports, reviews, and guideline-related papers addressing conventional CT-based measurement, software-assisted volumetry, AI-based stone segmentation, and the clinical significance of stone volume were included. Due to heterogeneity in study design and reported outcomes, the evidence was synthesized narratively.

Results

Maximum stone diameter remains simple and widely available, but it incompletely represents true stone burden, particularly in larger or irregular stones. Formula-based ellipsoid calculations are practical yet show limited accuracy in complex geometries. Semi-automated CT-based segmentation software provides more reliable volumetric assessment, with excellent agreement with reference standards and reduced interobserver variability. AI-based approaches have further improved efficiency by enabling rapid and highly accurate automated stone detection and volume calculation. Across the reviewed literature, stone volume was consistently shown to be more clinically informative than linear dimensions for predicting spontaneous passage, stone-free rates after shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy, and future symptomatic events during surveillance.

Conclusions

Stone volume offers a more accurate and clinically meaningful estimate of stone burden than maximum stone diameter alone. The transition from formula-based methods to software-assisted and AI-driven volumetry represents an important advance in urolithiasis imaging. Wider adoption will depend on standardized imaging protocols, improved software accessibility, and validation of volume-based thresholds for routine clinical practice.