Abstract
Purpose
To determine normal bladder wall thickness on CT in patients without bladder disease.
Materials and methods
Four hundred and nineteen patients presenting for trauma with normal CTs of the abdomen and pelvis were included in our retrospective study. Bladder wall thickness was assessed, and bladder volume was measured using both the ellipsoid formula and an automated technique. Patient age, gender, and body mass index were recorded. Linear regression models were created to account for bladder volume, age, gender, and body mass index, and the multiple correlation coefficient with bladder wall thickness was computed. Bladder volume and bladder wall thickness were log-transformed to achieve approximate normality and homogeneity of variance. Variables that did not contribute substantively to the model were excluded, and a parsimonious model was created and the multiple correlation coefficient was calculated. Expected bladder wall thickness was estimated for different bladder volumes, and 1.96 standard deviation above expected provided the upper limit of normal on the log scale.
Results
Age, gender, and bladder volume were associated with bladder wall thickness (p = 0.049, 0.024, and < 0.001, respectively). The linear regression model had an R2 of 0.52. Age and gender were negligible in contribution to the model, and a parsimonious model using only volume was created for both the ellipsoid and automated volumes (R2 = 0.52 and 0.51, respectively).
Conclusion
Bladder wall thickness correlates with bladder wall volume. The study provides reference bladder wall thicknesses on CT utilizing both the ellipsoid formula and automated bladder volumes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Wong-You JJ, Woodward PJ, Manning MA, Davis CJ (2006) Inflammatory and nonneoplastic bladder masses: radiologic–pathologic correlation 1. Radiographics 26(6):1847–1868
MacVicar A (2000) Bladder cancer staging. BJU Int 86(s1):111–122
Ota T, Shinohara M, Kinoshita K, et al. (1999) Two cases of metastatic bladder cancers showing diffuse thickening of the bladder wall. Jpn J Clin Oncol 29(6):314–316
Blatt AH, Titus J, Chan L (2008) Ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness in the assessment of voiding dysfunction. J Urol 179(6):2275–2279
Hakenberg OW, Linne C, Manseck A, Wirth MP (2000) Bladder wall thickness in normal adults and men with mild lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic enlargement. Neurourol Urodyn 19(5):585–593
Bright E, Oelke M, Tubaro A, Abrams P (2010) Ultrasound estimated bladder weight and measurement of bladder wall thickness—useful noninvasive methods for assessing the lower urinary tract? J Urol 184(5):1847–1854
Jequier S, Rousseau O (1987) Sonographic measurements of the normal bladder wall in children. Am J Roentgenol 149(3):563–566
Adibi A, Kazemian A, Toghiani A (2014) Normal bladder wall thickness measurement in healthy Iranian children, a cross-sectional study. Adv Biomed Res 3:188
Oelke M, Höfner K, Jonas U, et al. (2006) Ultrasound measurement of detrusor wall thickness in healthy adults. Neurourol Urodyn 25(4):308–317
Abou-Gamrah A, Fawzy M, Sammour H, Tadros S (2014) Ultrasound assessment of bladder wall thickness as a screening test for detrusor instability. Arch Gynecol Obstet 289(5):1023–1028
Üçer O, Gümüş B, Albaz AC, Pekindil G (2016) Assessment of bladder wall thickness in women with overactive bladder. Turk J Urol 42(2):97
Fananapazir G, Bashir MR, Marin D, Boll DT (2015) Computer-aided liver volumetry: performance of a fully-automated, prototype post-processing solution for whole-organ and lobar segmentation based on MDCT imaging. Abdom Imaging 40(5):1203–1212
Pattanayak P, Turkbey EB, Summers RM (2017) Comparative evaluation of three software packages for liver and spleen segmentation and volumetry. Acad Radiol 24:831–839
Summers RM (2016) Progress in fully automated abdominal CT interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 207(1):67–79
Gilsanz V, Miller J, Reid B (1982) Ultrasonic characteristics of posterior urethral valves. Radiology 145(1):143–145
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This study was not funded.
Conflict of interest
Ghaneh Fananapazir declares that he has no conflict of interest. Aleksandar Kitich declares that he has no conflict of interest. Ramit Lamba declares that he has no conflict of interest. Susan Stewart declares that she has no conflict of interest. Michael Corwin declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Requirement for informed consent was waived by our institutional review board in this retrospective study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fananapazir, G., Kitich, A., Lamba, R. et al. Normal reference values for bladder wall thickness on CT in a healthy population. Abdom Radiol 43, 2442–2445 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1463-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1463-x