Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of intravenous urography and magnetic resonance urography in preoperative evaluation of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children.
Sharma, Alok; Sodhi, Kushaljit Singh; Saxena, Akshay Kumar; Bhatia, Anmol; Menon, Prema; Rao, Katragadda L N; Khandelwal, Niranjan.
Afiliação
  • Sharma A; Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
  • Sodhi KS; Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
  • Saxena AK; Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
  • Bhatia A; Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
  • Menon P; Department of Pediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
  • Rao KL; Department of Pediatric Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
  • Khandelwal N; Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg ; 21(4): 169-174, 2016.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27695208
AIMS: To compare intravenous urography (IVU) and magnetic resonance urography (MRU) in the preoperative evaluation of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 35 children up to 10 years of age in whom unilateral or bilateral PUJO were suspected on ultrasonography were enrolled in this prospective study. All children underwent IVU and MRU, and the findings were compared. RESULTS: Of the 70 kidneys evaluated, 14 (20%) were not visualized on IVU because of nonexcretion of contrast, whereas all the 70 (100%) kidneys were visualized on MRU. On IVU, nephrogram was not visualized in 66 (94.2%) of the 70 kidneys, whereas MRU showed prompt and homogeneous nephrogram in 68 (97.1%) of the 70 kidneys. No evidence of PUJO was seen in 31 (44.2%) kidneys on both IVU and MRU. IVU showed PUJO in 26 (37.1%) kidneys, whereas MRU showed it in 38 (54.2%) kidneys. MRU detected two duplex systems that were missed on IVU. A focal renal lesion and two incidental extra renal abnormalities were detected on MRU, which were not visualized on IVU. CONCLUSION: MRU is better than IVU, especially in case of poorly functioning kidneys which are not visualized on IVU. MRU also provides anatomic details of the ureter and vessels with better evaluation of renal parenchyma. It also has an additional advantage of detecting incidental extra renal abnormalities, if present.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article