A. Kawashima et al., UNENHANCED HELICAL CT OF URETEROLITHIASIS - VALUE OF THE TISSUE RIM SIGN, American journal of roentgenology, 168(4), 1997, pp. 997-1000
OBJECTIVE. The tissue rim sign-a rim or halo of soft-tissue attenuatio
n seen around the circumference of an intraureteral calculus on unenha
nced axial CT-has been described as in differentiating ureteral calcul
i from extraurinary abdominal or pelvic calcifications. The purpose of
this study was to determine the prevalence of the tissue rim sign in
patients with ureterolithiasis and extraurinary calcifications and to
determine the relationship between the tissue rim sign, the size of a
calculus, and the degree of urinary obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS
. Unenhanced helical CT studies followed by excretory urography were o
btained in 59 patients with suspected acute ureterolithiasis. Each cal
cification along the expected course of the ureter seen on axial CT sc
ans was categorized as a ureteral calculus or as an extraurinary calci
fication, Each categorization was based on CT, urographic, and clinica
l findings and the presence or absence of a tissue rim sign, When the
outer wall of the ureter could not be seen because there was no clear
fat plane at the level of the calcification on CT, the sign was catego
rized as ''indeterminate.'' The size of the calculus was measured on C
T, and the degree of urinary obstruction was estimated on the basis of
the urograms. RESULTS. Thirty-two patients each had a single ureteral
calculus. Of these patients, CT revealed a positive tissue rim sign i
n 16 patients (50%), was negative in five patients (16%), and was inde
terminate in 11 patients (34%), In addition, we saw 57 extraurinary ca
lcifications in 18 patients (11 patients with ureteral calculi and sev
en patients without ureteral calculi). None of the 57 extraurinary cal
cifications was associated with a positive tissue rim sign, The tissue
rim sign was negative in 39 (68%) of the 57 extraurinary calcificatio
ns and indeterminate in the remaining 18 (32%). Ureteral calculi with
a negative tissue rim sign were larger than ureteral calculi with a po
sitive tissue rim sign (p <.01). A high degree of obstruction was pres
ent in four of five patients with ureteral calculi for which CT showed
a negative tissue rim sign. Conversely, six of 16 patients in whom CT
revealed a positive tissue rim sign also had a high degree of obstruc
tion. Therefore, no clear relationship was found between the degree of
obstruction and the presence of a positive tissue rim sign. CONCLUSIO
N. A positive tissue rim sign is specific for the diagnosis of uretero
lithiasis. However, a negative tissue rim sign does not preclude such
a diagnosis. The presence or absence of this tissue rim sign correlate
s with the size of a calculus but not with the degree of urinary obstr
uction. When CT reveals an indeterminate tissue rim sign, careful insp
ection for other CT findings, such as ipsilateral ureteral dilatation,
perinephric edema, dilatation of the intrarenal collecting system, an
d renal swelling, is necessary.