Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux.

Mz Faizah, Y Kanaheswari, Cr Thambidorai, Ma Zulfiqar
{"title":"Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux.","authors":"Mz Faizah,&nbsp;Y Kanaheswari,&nbsp;Cr Thambidorai,&nbsp;Ma Zulfiqar","doi":"10.2349/biij.7.1.e7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare echocontrast cystosonography (ECS) using in-vivo agitated saline with fluoroscopic micturating cystourethrography (MCU) in the detection and grading of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a prospective study of 25 children, who had MCU between 2007 and 2009. ECS was performed and findings documented prior to MCU. Baseline renal and bladder sonograms were obtained. The bladder was filled with normal saline followed by introduction of 10-20 mls of air to generate microbubbles. Detection of VUR was based on two sonographic criteria: (1) presence of microbubbles in the pelvicaliceal system (PCS), and (2) increase in dilatation of the PCS. VUR was graded as (1) Grade I: microbubbles seen in ureter only; (2) Grade II: microbubbles seen in non-dilated PCS; and (3) Grade III-V: microbubbles seen in dilated PCS. The ECS findings were compared using MCU as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 50 kidney-ureter (K-U) units studied, ECS detected 9 of 10 K-U units with VUR on MCU. ECS did not detect a Grade II VUR. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for criterion 1 was 90%, 87.5%, 88%, 64.3% and 97%, respectively, compared to criterion 2 which was 70%, 90%, 86%, 64% and 92%, respectively. The grading of VUR was similar on both ECS and MCU except for one case.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ECS using agitated saline was a sensitive technique for the detection of VUR. ECS grading was comparable with MCU grading of VUR.</p>","PeriodicalId":89331,"journal":{"name":"Biomedical imaging and intervention journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"e7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2349/biij.7.1.e7","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedical imaging and intervention journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2349/biij.7.1.e7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Purpose: To compare echocontrast cystosonography (ECS) using in-vivo agitated saline with fluoroscopic micturating cystourethrography (MCU) in the detection and grading of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR).

Materials and methods: This was a prospective study of 25 children, who had MCU between 2007 and 2009. ECS was performed and findings documented prior to MCU. Baseline renal and bladder sonograms were obtained. The bladder was filled with normal saline followed by introduction of 10-20 mls of air to generate microbubbles. Detection of VUR was based on two sonographic criteria: (1) presence of microbubbles in the pelvicaliceal system (PCS), and (2) increase in dilatation of the PCS. VUR was graded as (1) Grade I: microbubbles seen in ureter only; (2) Grade II: microbubbles seen in non-dilated PCS; and (3) Grade III-V: microbubbles seen in dilated PCS. The ECS findings were compared using MCU as the gold standard.

Results: Of the 50 kidney-ureter (K-U) units studied, ECS detected 9 of 10 K-U units with VUR on MCU. ECS did not detect a Grade II VUR. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for criterion 1 was 90%, 87.5%, 88%, 64.3% and 97%, respectively, compared to criterion 2 which was 70%, 90%, 86%, 64% and 92%, respectively. The grading of VUR was similar on both ECS and MCU except for one case.

Conclusion: ECS using agitated saline was a sensitive technique for the detection of VUR. ECS grading was comparable with MCU grading of VUR.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

超声对比膀胱输尿管造影与排尿膀胱输尿管造影检测膀胱输尿管反流的比较。
目的:比较体内搅拌生理盐水膀胱超声造影术(ECS)与透视尿路膀胱尿道造影(MCU)在膀胱输尿管反流(VUR)检测及分级中的作用。材料和方法:这是一项前瞻性研究,纳入了25名2007年至2009年间患有MCU的儿童。在MCU之前进行ECS并记录检查结果。基线肾脏和膀胱超声检查。膀胱充满生理盐水,然后引入10-20毫升空气产生微泡。VUR的检测基于两个超声标准:(1)盆腔系统(PCS)中存在微泡,(2)PCS扩张增加。VUR分级为(1)I级:仅输尿管可见微泡;(2) II级:未膨胀PCS见微泡;(3) III-V级:膨化PCS内可见微泡。ECS结果以MCU为金标准进行比较。结果:在研究的50个肾-输尿管(K-U)单位中,ECS检测到10个K-U单位中有9个在MCU上有VUR。ECS未检测到II级VUR。诊断标准1的敏感性、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为90%、87.5%、88%、64.3%和97%,而诊断标准2的敏感性、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为70%、90%、86%、64%和92%。除1例外,ECS和MCU的VUR分级基本一致。结论:搅拌生理盐水ECS检测VUR是一种灵敏的方法。ECS分级与MCU分级相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信