Cargando…

Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux

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 20...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Faizah, MZ, Kanaheswari, Y, Thambidorai, CR, Zulfiqar, MA
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Malaysia 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21655116
http://dx.doi.org/10.2349/biij.7.1.e7
_version_ 1782205236580974592
author Faizah, MZ
Kanaheswari, Y
Thambidorai, CR
Zulfiqar, MA
author_facet Faizah, MZ
Kanaheswari, Y
Thambidorai, CR
Zulfiqar, MA
author_sort Faizah, MZ
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3107689
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Malaysia
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31076892011-06-08 Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux Faizah, MZ Kanaheswari, Y Thambidorai, CR Zulfiqar, MA Biomed Imaging Interv J Original Article 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. Department of Biomedical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Malaysia 2011-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3107689/ /pubmed/21655116 http://dx.doi.org/10.2349/biij.7.1.e7 Text en © 2011 Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Faizah, MZ
Kanaheswari, Y
Thambidorai, CR
Zulfiqar, MA
Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
title Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
title_full Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
title_fullStr Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
title_full_unstemmed Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
title_short Echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
title_sort echocontrast cystosonography versus micturating cystourethrography in the detection of vesicoureteric reflux
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3107689/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21655116
http://dx.doi.org/10.2349/biij.7.1.e7
work_keys_str_mv AT faizahmz echocontrastcystosonographyversusmicturatingcystourethrographyinthedetectionofvesicouretericreflux
AT kanaheswariy echocontrastcystosonographyversusmicturatingcystourethrographyinthedetectionofvesicouretericreflux
AT thambidoraicr echocontrastcystosonographyversusmicturatingcystourethrographyinthedetectionofvesicouretericreflux
AT zulfiqarma echocontrastcystosonographyversusmicturatingcystourethrographyinthedetectionofvesicouretericreflux