Journals / Genel Tıp Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2

Pediatrik hastalarda manyetik rezonans ürografi ile intravenöz piyelografinin etkinliğinin karşılaştırılması

Pages
76–80
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)

MRU was found to be effective in evaluating parenchymal pathologies and in determining the underlying pathologies in patients with no nephrogram phase in IVP.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Intravenous pyelography (IVP) is a method of showing renal functions and anatomical features.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Male and female rats were administered with L-thyroxine intraperitoneally at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg for 21 days to induce hyperthyroidism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:MRU was found to be effective in evaluating parenchymal pathologies and in determining the underlying pathologies in patients with no nephrogram phase in IVP.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Intravenous pyelography (IVP) is a method of showing renal functions and anatomical features. However, it is not appropriate to use it in the pediatric age group because of ionizing radiation. For this reason, we are trying to evaluate urinary pathologies with magnetic resonance urography (MRU), which has become popular in recent years. In our study, we aimed to investigate the differences between MRU and IVU, showing dilution of urinary system. Materials and Methods: Male and female rats were administered with L-thyroxine intraperitoneally at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg for 21 days to induce hyperthyroidism. Morris water maze (MWM) was used to assess learning and memory performance. Results: There was no significant difference in the detection of pelvicalyceal dilatation between MRU and IVP (P <0.0001). MRU was found to be effective in evaluating parenchymal pathologies and in determining the underlying pathologies in patients with no nephrogram phase in IVP. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the detection of pelvicalyceal dilatation between MRU and IVP (P <0.0001). MRU was found to be effective in evaluating parenchymal pathologies and in determining the underlying pathologies in patients with no nephrogram phase in IVP.

Özet

Amaç: İntravenözpiyelografi(İVP) böbrek fonksiyonlarını ve anatomik özelliklerini gösteren bir yöntemdir. Fakat iyonizan radyasyon içermesi nedeniylepediatrik yaş grubunda kullanılması uygun değildir. Bu nedenle son zamanlarda kullanımı yaygınlaşan manyetik rezonansürografi(MRÜ) ile üriner patolojiler değerlendirilmeye çalışılmaktadır. Bizde çalışmamızda MRÜ’ninüriner sistem dilatasyonlarını göstermekte İVP ile arasındaki farkları incelemeyi amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu retrospektif çalışmada 40 pediatrik yaş grubundaki hastanın İVP ve MRÜ tetkikleri incelendi.Tetkikler arasındaki pelvikalisiyel sistem dilatasyon dereceleri karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: MRÜ ile İVP arasında pelvikalisiyel sistem dilatasyon derecelerini saptama konusunda anlamlı farklılık izlenmedi (P<0,0001).MRÜ’ninparankimal patolojileri değerlendirmede ve İVP’denefrogram fazı oluşmayan hastalarda altta yatan patolojileri belirlemede etkin olduğu görüldü. Sonuç: MRÜ pelvikalisiyeldilatasyonları ve ek patolojileri göstermede etkili bir yöntemdir.İyonizan radyasyon içermemesi pediatrik yaş grubunda güvenle kullanılmasını sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

POLAT, G., PİRİMOĞLU, R. B. (2018). Pediatrik hastalarda manyetik rezonans ürografi ile intravenöz piyelografinin etkinliğinin karşılaştırılması. Genel Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2, 76–80. https://ajindex.com/articles/224824

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Erdoğmuş BY, B.; Bozkurt, M. MR Ürografi. Tıp Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2003;1(3):53-6.
  2. Hamza Y, Sulieman A, Abuderman A, Alzimami K, Omer H. Evaluation of Patient Effective Doses in Ct Urography, Intravenous Urography and Renal Scintigraphy. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2015 Jul;165(1-4):452-6. PubMed PMID: WOS:000358449300098. English. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, Silverman SG. Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology. 2004 Jul;232(1):126-32. PubMed PMID: WOS:000222161300016. English. Erdoğmuş BB, M.; Bakır, Z. Üriner sistem obstrüksiyonlarında HASTE tekniğinin ve ekskretuar MR ürografinin tanı değeri. Tanısal ve Girişimsel Radyoloji. 2004;10:309-15.
  3. Battal B, Kocaoglu M, Akgun V, Aydur E, Dayanc M, Ilica T. Feasibility of MR urography in patients with urinary diversion. J Med Imag Radiat On. 2011 Dec;55(6):542-50. PubMed PMID: WOS:000297949300002. English. Emad-Eldin S, Abdelaziz O, El-Diasty TA. Diagnostic value of combined static-excretory MR Urography in children with hydronephrosis. J Adv Res. 2015 Mar;6(2):145- 53. PubMed PMID: 25750748. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4348446. Blandino A, Gaeta M, Minutoli F, Salamone I, Magno C, Scribano E, et al. MR urography of the ureter. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2002 Nov;179(5):1307-14. PubMed PMID: WOS:000178725800035. English. Nolte-Ernsting CCA, Adam GB, Gunther RW. MR urography: examination techniques and clinical applications. European Radiology. 2001;11(3):355-72. PubMed PMID: WOS:000167273600001. English. Roy C, Ohana M, Host P, Alemann G, Labani A, Wattiez A, et al. MR urography (MRU) of non-dilated ureter with diuretic administration: Static fluid 2D FSE T2-weighted versus 3D gadolinium T1-weighted GE excretory MR. Eur J Radiol Open. 2014;1:6-13. PubMed PMID: 26937423. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4750612. Semins MJ, Feng Z, Trock B, Bohlman M, Hosek W, Matlaga BR. Evaluation of acute renal colic: a comparison of non-contrast CT versus 3-T non-contrast HASTE MR urography. Urolithiasis. 2013 Feb;41(1):43-6. PubMed PMID: 23532422. Jung P, Brauers A, Nolte-Ernsting CA, Jakse G, Gunther RW. Magnetic resonance urography enhanced by gadolinium and diuretics: a comparison with conventional urography in diagnosing the cause of ureteric obstruction. Bju International. 2000 Dec;86(9):960-5. PubMed PMID: WOS:000165663900002. English. Nolte-Ernsting CCA, Tacke J, Adam GB, Haage P, Jung P, Jakse G, et al. Diuretic-enhanced gadolinium excretory MR urography: comparison of conventional g