medigraphic.com

2011, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2011; 10 (2)

Current role of image diagnosis in evaluating patients with nephritic colic. Experiment in a bicentric study with 145 patients

Ochoa-Figueroa MA, Fernández-Mena J, Zuluaga-Gómez A, Sánchez-Rodríguez V

Language: Spanish
References: 34
Page: 112-120
PDF size: 323.16 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purposes. Determine the functional and hydrodynamic implications for the kidney and the retroperitoneum in nephritic colic. Protocolize, by means of different imaging methods, the primary and secondary diagnoses of nephritic colic.
Materials and methods. A retrospective, bicentric study of 145 adult patients. Two groups of patients (A and B) who were studied by means of simple abdominal x-rays (KUB), ultrasound (US), intravenous urography (UIV), and computer assisted tomography (CAT). Also, 12 patients in group B underwent magnetic resonance (MR). We looked for urolithiasis, urinary obstruction, and secondary changes resulting from those conditions.
Results. We identified changes in echo architecture, radiological density, and signal intensity in the kidney and urinary tract. We also recorded the size and location of urolithiasis; the degree of urinary tract dilation; changes in size, renal density and perinephric space; and lateralization and duration of nephritic colic.
Conclusions. The duration of nephritic colic and the degree of urinary excretory tract obstruction are directly related to complications which, in both the lymphatic and urinary systems, manifest in the perinephric, retroperitoneal, and pelvic spaces. All patients with symptoms of nephritic colic should be studied, from the outset, by means of a KUB and a bilateral renal, urethral, and vesicular US, regardless of the duration of symptoms. Patients with symptoms for 8 hours or more will be candidates for a CAT scan, and those in whim both the US and the CAT have detected lymphatic or urinous extravasates should undergo an MR.


REFERENCES

  1. Dobbins JM, Rao PM, Novelline RA, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography for suspected urinary tract stones: current state of the art. Emergency Radiology 1998;5:97-102.

  2. Coe FL, Evan A, Worcester E. Kidney Stone Disease. J Clin Invest 2005;115:2598-2608.

  3. Smith RC, Levine J, Rosenfeld AT. Helical CT of urinary tract stones: epidemiology, origin, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. Radiol Clin North Am 1999;37:911-952.

  4. Smith RC, Levine J, Dalrymple NC, et al. Acute flank pain: a modern approach to diagnosis and management. Seminars in US, CT and MRI 1999;2:108-135.

  5. Regan F, Bohlman ME, Khazan R, et al. MR urography using HASTE imaging in the assessment of ureteric obstruction. AJR 1996;167:1115-1120.

  6. Grenier N, Quaia E, Prasad PV, et al. Radiology Imaging of renal structure and function by computed tomography, magnetic resonante imaging, and ultrasound. Semin Nucl Med. 2011;41:45-60.

  7. Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med, 1991;151:1589-1592.

  8. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, et al. Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 1997;204:27-31.

  9. Chu G, Rosenfield AT, Anderson K, et al. Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1999;173:417-423.

  10. Assi Z, Platt JF, Francis IR, et al. Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2000;175:333-337.

  11. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, et al. Plain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol, 2000;164:308-310.

  12. Ho Ahn S, Mayo-Smith WW, Murphy BL. Acute Nontraumatic Abdominal Pain in Adult Patients: Abdominal radiography compared with CT evaluation. Radiology 2002;225:159-164.

  13. Sinclair D, Wilson S, Toi A, et al. The evaluation of suspected renal colic: ultrasound scan versus excretory urography. Ann Emerg Med, 1989;18:556-559.

  14. Aslaksen A, Gothlin JH. Ultrasonic diagnosis of ureteral calculi in patients with acute flank pain. Eur J Radiol, 1990;11:87-90.

  15. Deyoe LA, Cronan JJ, Breslaw BH, et al. New techniques of ultrasound and color Doppler in the prospective evaluation of acute renal obstruction. Do they replace the intravenous urogram? Abdom Imaging, 1995;20:58–63.

  16. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G, et al. Renal Colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur. Radiol. 1998;8:212-217.

  17. Catalano O, Nunziata A, Altei F. Suspected ureteral colic: primary helical CT versus selective helical CT after unenhanced radiography and sonography. AJR 2002;178:379-387.

  18. Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology 2000;217:792-797.

  19. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrastenhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995;194:789-794.

  20. Ripollés T, Errando J, Agramunt M. Ureteral colic: US versus CT. Abdominal Imaging 2004;29:263-266.

  21. Calva Arcos M, Murrieta González H, Acevedo Tirado MT, et al. Utilidad diagnóstica de la urotomografía en pacientes con hematuria. An Radiol Mex 2006;5:27-38.

  22. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, et al. Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs on unenhanced CT. AJR 1996;167:1109-1113.

  23. Martel J, De la Cruz R, Rengifo D. Utilidad de la tomografía computarizada helicoidal en el manejo del cólico nefrítico. Radiología 2000;42:493-498.

  24. Ruppert-Kohlmayr AJ, Stacher R, Preidler KW, et al. Nativ-spiral-computertomographie bei patienten mit akutem flankenschmerz: sinn oder unsinn? Fortschr Röntgenstr. 1999;170:168-173.

  25. Homer JA, Davies-Payne DL, Peddinti BS. Randomized prospective comparison of non-contrast enhanced helical computed tomography and intravenous urography in the diagnosis of acute ureteric colic. Australas Radiol. 2001;45:285–290.

  26. Smith-Bindman R. Is computed tomography safe? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1-4.

  27. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-2284.

  28. Bergman A, Engiund A, Magnusson A. Comparison between radiation doses during non-contrast CT and intravenous urography in patients with acute urinary tract colic. Eur Radiol 2000;10:360.

  29. O ́Malley ME, Soto JA, Yucel EK. MR urography: evaluation of a threedimensional fase spin-echo technique in patients with hydronephrosis. AJR 1997;168:387-392.

  30. Rothpearl A, Frager D, Subramanian A. MR urography: technique and application. Radiology 1995;194:125-130.

  31. Reuther G, Kiefer B, Wandl E. Visualization of urinary tract dilatation: value of sinlge-shot MR urography. Eur. Radiol. 1997;7:1276-1281.

  32. Tang Y, Yamashita Y, Namimoto T. The value of MR urography that uses HASTE sequences to reveal urinary tract disorders. AJR 1996;167:1497-1502.

  33. Teh HS, Ang ES, Wong WC, et al. MR Renography using a dynamic gradient-echo sequence and low-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine as an alternative to radionuclide renography. AJR 2003;181:441-450.

  34. European Commission. Public Finances in EMU 2009. European Economy No 5. Luxembourg: European Communities, 2009.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com