Journals / JAREM / 2013 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of non enhanced computed tomography with ultrasound in patients with renal colic

Renal Kolikli hastalarda bilgisayarlı tomografi ile ultrasonagrafi bulgularının karşılaştırılması

Journal
JAREM
Pages
31–35
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Computed tomography can be useful in cases with negative stone findings in US.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of non enhanced computed tomography (NECT) with ultrasound (US) imaging in the assessment of ureteral stone in patients admitted to emergency department with flank pain.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Between January 2012 and June 2012, the data of patients admitted to the urology outpatient clinic or emergency department with uni or bilateral flank and/or groin pain were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Computed tomography can be useful in cases with negative stone findings in US.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of non enhanced computed tomography (NECT) with ultrasound (US) imaging in the assessment of ureteral stone in patients admitted to emergency department with flank pain. Methods: Between January 2012 and June 2012, the data of patients admitted to the urology outpatient clinic or emergency department with uni or bilateral flank and/or groin pain were included in the study. The data of US, NECT and urinanalysis were retrospectively reviewed. Patients whose stones were not detected on US examination and refered to NECT examination were included in the study. Results: The mean age and stone size of the 138 patients included in the study were 35.3±10.8 (7-68), 6.12±2.68 (3-17), respectively. The patients were distributed according to stone size; the mean age, stone size of 63 patients in group I and group II were 33.1±10.7, 3.93±0.98 mm and 37.1±10.9, 7.96±2.24 mm respectively. NECT, US sensitivities in Group 1 and Group 2 were 96% (72/75), 56% (76) and 97% (63), 56% (76). The patients were also distributed according to stone location in the urinary tract; the mean age and stone size of 47 patients in group A (kidney stones) were 36.0±9.47, 5.52±0.3 mm respectively. the mean age and stone size of 23 patients in group B (renal pelvis and upper ureteral stones) were 38.10±11.1 and 7.87±1.98 mm, the mean age and stone size of 25 patients in C group (mid ureteral Stones) were 34.5±10.2 and 6.02±1.33 mm, the mean age and stone size of 43 patients in D group (lower ureteral stones) were 33.4±11.9 and 5.86±2.33 mm, respectively. Conclusion: NECT is more efficient than US in the detection urinary stones in patients admitted to the emergency department. However, the non invasive US on bedside examination in the emergency department can be useful in the detection of urinary stones. Computed tomography can be useful in cases with negative stone findings in US.

Özet

Amaç: Acil servise yan ağrısı ile başvuran hastalarda spiral bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) ile ultrasonografinin (USG) üreter taşını göstermedeki tanısal etkinliğini karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Yöntemler: Ocak 2012 ile Haziran 2012 tarihleri arasında acil servise ve üroloji polikliniğine tek ya da iki taraflı yan ağrısı, karın ağrısı,kasık ağrısı şikayeti ile başvuran ve renal kolik olduğu şüphelenilen hastalar retrospektif olarak incelenerek çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların yapılan ultrason, tomografi ve tam idrar tetkikleri incelendi. Ultrason yapılıp taş tespit edilemeyen ve sonra tomografi yapılan hastalar çalışmaya alındı. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen 138 hastanın yaşları ortalaması 35,3±10,8 (7-68), taş çapları 6,12±2,68 (3-17) mm, taş çapına göre ayrılan Grup 1'de 63 hasta yaş ortalaması 33,1±10,7 ve taş çapı ortalaması 3,93±0,98 mm olarak bulundu. Grup 2'de 75 hastanın yaş ortalaması 37,1±10,9 ve taş çapı ortalaması 7,96±2,24 mm idi. Grup 1'de BT’nin sensivitesi %96 (72/75) ve ultrasonun sensivitesi %56 (76) olarak bulundu. Grup 2'de BT’nin sensivitesi %97 (/63) ve ultrasonun sensivitesi %64 (63) tespit edildi. Taşların bulunduğu anatomik lokalizasyonuna göre gruplamada A grubunda (böbrekler) 47 hastanın yaşları ortalaması 36,0±9,4 ve taş çapları 5,52±0,43 mm, B grubunda (pelvis ve üst üreter) 23 hastanın yaşları ortalaması 38,10±11,1 ve taş çapları 7,87±1,98, C grubunda (orta üreter) 25 hastanın yaşları ortalaması 34,5±10,2 ve taş çapları 6,02±1,33 mm, D grubunda (alt üreter) 43 hastanın yaş ortalaması 33,4±11,9 ve taş çapları 5,86±2,33 mm idi. Sonuç: Bilgisayarlı tomografi acil servise renal kolik şikayeti ile başvuran hastalardaki üriner sistem taşlarını tespit etmede USG’den daha etkilidir. Bununla birlikte, yatak başı kullanılan ve invazif olmayan USG, acil servislerde üriner taşların tespitinde ilk seçenek olarak kullanılabilir. Bilgisayarlı tomografi, ultrason sonucu negatif gelen hastalar için kullanışlı olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇAKIROĞLU, B., EYÜPOĞLU, S. E., HAZAR, A., BALCI, M. B. C., SİNANOĞLU, O., AKSOY, S. H. (2013). Comparison of non enhanced computed tomography with ultrasound in patients with renal colic. JAREM, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 31–35. https://ajindex.com/articles/213223

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Shokeir AA. Renal colic: pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Eur Urol 2001; 39: 241-9. [CrossRef] 2.Bihl G, Meyers A. Recurrent renal stone disease-advances in pathogenesis and clinical management. Lancet 2001; 358: 651-6. [CrossRef] 3.Kalb B, Sharma P, Salman K, Ogan K, Pattaras JG, Martin DR. Acute abdominal pain: is there a potential role for MRI in the setting of the emergency department in a patient with renal calculi. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32: 1012-23. [CrossRef] 4.Labrecque M, Dostaler LP, Rousselle R, Nguyen T, Poirier S. Efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of acute renal colic. A meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1381-7. [CrossRef] 5.Müslümanoğlu AY, Tepeler A. Renal kolik, tanı ve tedavisi. Marmara Medical Journal 2008; 21; 187-92. 6.Pak CY. Kidney stones. Lancet 1998; 351: 1797-801. [CrossRef] 7.Soucie JM, Thun MJ, Coates RJ, McClellan W, Austin H. Demographic and geographic variability of kidney stones in the United States. Kidney Int 1994; 46: 893-9. [CrossRef] 8.Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC. Urologic Diseases of America Project. Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 2005; 173: 848-57. [CrossRef] 9. Scales CD Jr, Curtis LH, Norris RD, Springhart WP, Sur RL, Schulman KA, et al. Changing gender prevalence of stone disease. J Urol 2007; 177: 979-82. [CrossRef] 10. Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Genitourinary imaging: the past 40 years. Radiology 2000; 215: 313-24. 11. Roth CS, Bowyer BA, Berquist TM. Utility of the plain abdominal ra- diograph for diagnosing ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med 1985; 14: 311-5. [CrossRef] 12. Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M. Renal Colic. Utility of the pla- in abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 1589-92. [CrossRef] 13. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M, Dalrymple N, Smith RC. Ureteral cal- culi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 1997; 204: 27-31. 14. Jackman SV, Potter SR, Regan F, Jarrett TW. Plain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 2000; 164: 308-10. [CrossRef] 15. Boyd R, Gray AJ. Role of the plain radiograph and urinalysis in acute ureteric colic. J Accid Emerg Med 1996; 13: 390-1. [CrossRef] 16. Hamm M, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Knöpfle E, Häckel T, Häuser H, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Eur Urol