1887
Volume 2007, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 0253-8253
  • E-ISSN: 2227-0426

ملخص

Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of non-enhanced spiral CT (NECT) and compare it with that of excretory urography (EU) in patients with acute flank pain.

Methods: Ninety five patients presenting with acute flank pain underwent both NECT and EU. Both techniques were used to determine the presence, size, and location of urinary stone, and the presence or absence of secondary signs was also evaluated. The existence of ureteral stone was confirmed by its removal or spontaneous passage during follow-up. The absence of a stone was determined on the basis of the clinical and radiological evidence.

Result: Seventy eight of the 95 patients had one or more ureteral stones and 17 had no stones. CT depicted 79 of 83 calculi in the 78 patients with a stone and no calculus in all seventeen without a stone. The sensitivity and specificity of NECT were 95% and 100%, respectively. EU disclosed 73 calculi in the 78patients with a stone and no calculus in fifteen of the seventeen without a stone, with sensitivity and specificity 89% and 88% respectively.

Conclusion: For the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain, NECT is an excellent modality with high sensitivity and specificity. In near future it may replace EU.

Loading

جارٍ تحميل قياسات المقالة...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2007.2.10
٢٠٠٧-١١-٠١
٢٠٢٤-٠٧-١٨
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Sierakowski R, Finlay son B, Landes R, et al., The frequency of urolithiasis in hospital discharge diagnoses in the United States. Invest Urol. 1978; 15::438441.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  2. Osborn E, Sutherland C, Scholl A, et al., Roentgenography of urinary tract during excretion of sodium iodide. JAMA. 1923; 80::368.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  3. Shehadi W, Toniolo G. Adverse reactions to contrast media: A report from the committee on safety of contrast media of the International Society of Radiology. Radiology. 1980; 137::299302.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  4. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al., Adverse reactions to ionic and non-ionic contrast media. Radiology. 1990; 175::621628.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  5. Barrett B, Carlisle E. Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high and low osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology. 1993; 188::171178.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  6. Smith R, Rosenfield A, Choe K, et al., Acute flank pain: Comparison of noncontrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995; 194::789794.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  7. Sommer F, Jeffrey R, Rubin G, et al., Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: Value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR. 1995; 165::509.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  8. Smith R, Verga M, McCarthy S, et al., Diagnosis of acute flank pain: Value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR. 1996; 166::97.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  9. Fielding J, Steele G, Fox L, et al., Spiral computerised tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol. 1997; 157::20712073.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  10. Smith R, Essenmacher K, Rosenfield A, et al., Acute flank pain: Comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995; 194::789794.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  11. Dalrymple N, Verga M, Anderson K, et al., The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urology. 1998; 159::735740.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  12. Miller O, Rineer S, Reichard S, et al., Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology. 1998; 52::982987.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  13. Levine J, Neitlich J, Verga M, et al., Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997; 204::2731.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  14. Svedstrom E, Alanen A, Nurmi M. Radiologic diagnosis of renal colic: the role of plain films, excretory urography and sonography. Eur Radiol. 1990; 11::180183.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  15. Roth C, Boyer B, Berquist T. Utility of the plain radiograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi. Am Emerg Med. 1985; 14::311315.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  16. Mutgi J, Williams J, Nettleman M. Renal colic: utility of the plain abdominal roentgenograph. Arch Intern Med. 1991; 151::15891592.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  17. Mutgy A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal colic: Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med. 1991; 151::15891591.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  18. Smith R, Ronsenfield A, Choe K, et al., Acute flank pain: Comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology. 1995; 194::789794.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  19. Miller O, Kane C. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Current Opin Urol. 2000; 10::123129.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  20. Smith R, Verga M, McCarthy S, et al., Acute ureteral obstruction: Value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT. AJR. 1996; 167::11091113.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  21. Dalymple N, Verga M, Anderson K, et al., The value of unenhanced helical computed tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998; 159::735774.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  22. Heneghan J, Dalrymple N, Verga M, et al., Soft tissue “Rim “ sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 1997; 202::709711.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  23. Kawashima A, Sandler C, Boridy I, et al., Unenhanced helical CT of ureterolithiasis: value of the tissue rim sign. AJR. 1997; 168::9971000.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
  24. Boridy IC, Nikloaidis P, Kawashima A, et al., Noncontrast helical CTfor ureteral stones. World J Urol. 1998; 16::1821.
    [Google الباحث العلمي]
/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2007.2.10
Loading
  • نوع المستند: Research Article
الموضوعات الرئيسية excretory urographyNon-enhanced CTstone and ureter

الأكثر اقتباسًا لهذا الشهر Most Cited RSS feed

هذه الخانة مطلوبة
يُرجى إدخال عنوان بريد إلكتروني صالح
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error