Journals / Journal of Ankara Medical School / 2002 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4

Ultrasonogfainin üreter taşlarını saptama oranı: Hidronefroz düzeyiyle ilişkisi

Detection rate of ureter stones with us: Relationship with grade of hydronephrosis

Pages
183–186
Publication Date
2022-10-17
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)

US, as a noninvasive modality, is useful for detection of ureteral stones, with high detection rates in patients with grade 2 and detection rates comparable to spiral CT in grade 3 hydronephrosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to investigate the relation of hydronephrosis grade and the detection rate of ureteral stones with ultrasonography and call attention to the value of a careful sonographic study of these patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Sonographic reports of 184 ureteral stones that has been followed in our clinic during 2000-2001 is evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:US, as a noninvasive modality, is useful for detection of ureteral stones, with high detection rates in patients with grade 2 and detection rates comparable to spiral CT in grade 3 hydronephrosis.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2000-2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the relation of hydronephrosis grade and the detection rate of ureteral stones with ultrasonography and call attention to the value of a careful sonographic study of these patients. Sonographic reports of 184 ureteral stones that has been followed in our clinic during 2000-2001 is evaluated. The detection rate of ureteral stones with US was 65. 9 %, 78 %and 95 % for grade1, 2 and 3 hydronephrosis respectively. US, as a noninvasive modality, is useful for detection of ureteral stones, with high detection rates in patients with grade 2 and detection rates comparable to spiral CT in grade 3 hydronephrosis.

Özet

Ultrasonografi (US) ile üreter taşlarının saptanmasında düşük tanısal doğruluk oranları bildirildiğinden, üreter taşı şüphesi olan hastalar diğer görüntüleme yöntemlerine yönlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, üreter taşlarının US ile saptanma oranlarının hidronefroz düzeyiyle ilişkisini inceleyerek, bu grup hastalarda dikkatli bir sonografik incelemenin değerine dikkat çekmektir. 2000- 2001 yılları süresince kliniğimizde tedavi ve takibi yapılan 184 üreter taşının US bulguları değerlendirmeye alınmıştır. US' nin üreter taşlarını saptama oranı grade 1 düzeyinde hidronefrozda %65.9, grade 2 düzeyinde %78, grade 3 düzeyinde ise %95 dir. US, üreter taşlarını saptama oranları, grade 2 hidronefrotik böbreklerde yüksek, grade 3 hidronefrotik böbrekli olgularda ise spiral BT'ye karşılaştırılabilir düzeyde olan, noninvaziv ve kullanışlı bir yöntemdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDEN, E., YAMAN, Ö., GÖĞÜŞ, O., GÖĞÜŞ, Ç., KARAMÜRSEL, T., İNAL, T. (2022). Ultrasonogfainin üreter taşlarını saptama oranı: Hidronefroz düzeyiyle ilişkisi. Journal of Ankara Medical School, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 4, 183–186. https://ajindex.com/articles/559965

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Sheafor HD, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparision. Radiology 2000; 217: 792-7
  2. Patlas M, Farkas A, Fisher D, et al. Ultrasound vs CT for the detection of ureteric stones in patients with renal colic. British J Radiol 2001; 74: 901-4
  3. Erwin BC, Carroll BA, Sommer FG. Renal colic: the role of ultrasound in initial evaluation. Radiology 1984; 152: 147-50
  4. Sinclair D, Wilson S, Toi A, et al. The evaluation of suspected renal colic: ultrasound scan versus excretory urography. Ann Emerg Med 1989; 18: 556-9
  5. 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
  6. Ellenbogen PH, Scheible FW, Talner LB, et al. Sensitivity of gray scale ultrasound in detecting urinary tract obstruction. AJR 1978; 130: 731 - 3
  7. Palma LF, Stacul F, Bazzocchi M, et al. Ultrasonography and plain film versus intravenous urography in ureteric colic. Clin Radiol 1993; 47: 333-6
  8. Judith AW Webb. The renal collecting system. In: Cosgrove D, Meire H, Dewburry K, eds. Abdominal and General Ultrasound, 1993; Vol 2: 471
  9. Whitfield HN. The management of ureteric stones, part 1: diagnosis. BJU International 1999; 84: 911-5. 10.Denton ER, Mackanzie A, Greenwell T, et al. Unenhanced he0lical CT for renal colic- is the radiation dose justifiable? Clin Radiol 1999; 54: 444- 7
  10. Boridy IC, Maklad N, Sandier CM. Suspected urolithiasis in pregnant women; imaging algorithm and litherature review. AJR 1996; 167: 869- 75
  11. Sommer FG, Jeffrey RB, Rubin CD, et al. Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR 1995; 165: 509-14
  12. Yılmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G et al. Renal colic: comparision of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol 1998; 8:212-17
  13. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparision of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995; 194: 789-94
  14. Erwin BC, Carroll BA, Sommer FG. Renal colic: the role of ultrasound in initial evaluation. Radiology 1984; 152: 147-50. 16.Saita H, Matsukawa M, Fukushima H, et al. Ultrasound diagnosis of ureteral stones: its usefulness with subsequent excretory urography. J Urol 1988; 140:28-31.