SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

Üreteral taşları tespit etmede ultrasonografinin, spiral bilgisayarlı tomografi ile karşılaştırılması

Comparison of computerized spiral tomography with ultrasonography for detection of ureteral calculi

Can AKTAŞ
Sezgin SARIKAYA
Esin YENCİLEK
Didem AY
Baki AKÇİ
Uğur ÖZALP
Pages
12–14
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

A kappa value of 0.62 (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: We aimed to compare accuracy levels of ultrasonography and spiral computerized tomography for detection of the ureteral calculi in patients admitted to the emergency department with flank pain.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Of the 76 patients with flank pain, CT detected ureteral calculi in 47 out of 48 patients (97.9%) and USG detected ureteral calculi in 34 out of the 48 patients (70.83%).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A kappa value of 0.62 (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to compare accuracy levels of ultrasonography and spiral computerized tomography for detection of the ureteral calculi in patients admitted to the emergency department with flank pain. Methods: The patients presented with either unilateral or bilateral flank pain to the emergency department over a four-month period and who were suspected to be renal colic were included into the study. All of the study patients with distended bladder after hydration had ultrasonography (USG) and unhanced helical computerized tomography (UHCT) performed by two independent radiologists. Results: Of the 76 patients with flank pain, CT detected ureteral calculi in 47 out of 48 patients (97.9%) and USG detected ureteral calculi in 34 out of the 48 patients (70.83%). CT detected uretral calculi in 14 patients which was not detected by USG. CT also detected renal calculi in 7 patients which was not detected by USG. A kappa value of 0.62 (p

Özet

Amaç: Acil servise yan ağrısı ile başvuran hastalarda spiral bilgisayarlı tomografi (BT) ile ultrasonografinin (USG) üreter taşını göstermedeki tanısal kesinliğini karşılaştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Dört aylık süre içerisinde acil servise tek ya da iki taraflı yan ağrısı ile başvuran ve renal kolik olduğu şüphelenilen hastalar çalışmaya alındı. Tüm hastalar hidrasyon ile mesane doluluğu sağlandıktan sonra ultrasonografi ve kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografi kullanılarak iki bağımsız radyolog tarafından değerlendirildiler. Bulgular: Yan ağrılı 76 hastada, BT 48 üreter taşlı hastanın 47’sini (%97.9), USG ise 34’ünü (%70.8) tespit etti. BT, USG’nin tespit edemediği 14 üreter taşını ve 7 böbrek taşını tespit etmiştir. Bilgisayarlı tomografi ve USG’nin üreter taşını tespit etmede orta düzeyde uyumlu olduğu (kapa=0.62, p

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTAŞ, C., SARIKAYA, S., YENCİLEK, E., AY, D., AKÇİ, B., ÖZALP, U. (2022). Üreteral taşları tespit etmede ultrasonografinin, spiral bilgisayarlı tomografi ile karşılaştırılması. Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 12–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/626035

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Wang JH, Shen SH, Huang SS, Chang CY. Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urography in the evaluation of acute renal colic. J Chin Med Assoc 2008;71(1):30-6
  2. Anderson KR, Smith RC. CT for the evaluation of fank pain. J Endourol 2001;15(1):25-9
  3. Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, Carroll BA, Keogan MT, Paulson EK, et al. Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology 2000;217(3):792-7
  4. Gavant ML. Low-osmolar contrast media in the 1990s. Guidelines for urography in a cost-sensitive environment. Invest Radiol 1993;28:13-20
  5. Smith RC, Rosenfeld AT, Choe KA, Essenmacher KR, Verga M, Glickman MG, et al. Acute fank pain: comparison of non- contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995;194(3):789-94
  6. Aslaksen A, Göthlin JH. Ultrasonic diagnosis of ureteral calculi in patients with acute fank pain. Eur J Radiol 1990;11(2):87-90
  7. Shokeir AA. Renal colic: new concepts related to pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Urol 2002;12(4):263-9
  8. Erwin BC, Carroll BA, Sommer FG. Renal colic: the role of ultrasound in initial evaluation. Radiology 1984;152(1):147-50
  9. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfeld AT. Diagnosis of acute fank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166(1):97-101
  10. Sinclair D, Wilson S, Toi A, Greenspan L. The evaluation of suspected renal colic: ultrasound scan versus excretory urography. Ann Emerg Med 1989;18(5):556-9
  11. Eray O, Cubuk MS, Oktay C, Yilmaz S, Cete Y, Ersoy FF. The effcacy of urinalysis, plain flms, and spiral CT in ED patients with suspected renal colic. Am J Emerg Med 2003;21(2):152-4
  12. Katz DS, Scheer M, Lumerman JH, Mellinger BC, Stillman CA, Lane MJ. Alternative or additional diagnoses on unenhanced helical computed tomography for suspected renal colic: experience with 1000 consecutive examinations. Urology 2000;56(1):53-7
  13. Sfakianakis GN, Cohen DJ, Braunstein RH, Leveillee RJ, Lerner I, Bird VG, et al. MAG3-F0 scintigraphy in decision making for emergency intervention in renal colic after helical CT positive for a urolith. J Nucl Med 2000;41(11):1813-22.