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

Abstract

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2007.2.10
2007-11-01
2020-12-02
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 Scholar]
  2. Osborn E, Sutherland C, Scholl A, et al., Roentgenography of urinary tract during excretion of sodium iodide. JAMA. 1923; 80::368.
    [Google Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  4. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al., Adverse reactions to ionic and non-ionic contrast media. Radiology. 1990; 175::621628.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrett B, Carlisle E. Metaanalysis of the relative nephrotoxicity of high and low osmolality iodinated contrast media. Radiology. 1993; 188::171178.
    [Google Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  8. Smith R, Verga M, McCarthy S, et al., Diagnosis of acute flank pain: Value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR. 1996; 166::97.
    [Google Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  15. Roth C, Boyer B, Berquist T. Utility of the plain radiograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi. Am Emerg Med. 1985; 14::311315.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mutgi J, Williams J, Nettleman M. Renal colic: utility of the plain abdominal roentgenograph. Arch Intern Med. 1991; 151::15891592.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mutgy A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal colic: Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med. 1991; 151::15891591.
    [Google Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  19. Miller O, Kane C. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Current Opin Urol. 2000; 10::123129.
    [Google Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  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 Scholar]
  24. Boridy IC, Nikloaidis P, Kawashima A, et al., Noncontrast helical CTfor ureteral stones. World J Urol. 1998; 16::1821.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/qmj.2007.2.10
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): excretory urography , Non-enhanced CT , stone and ureter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error