Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons · 2016
Comparison of intravenous urography and magnetic resonance urography in preoperative evaluation of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in children.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sharma Alok, Sodhi Kushaljit Singh, Saxena Akshay Kumar, Bhatia Anmol, Menon Prema, Rao Katragadda L N, Khandelwal Niranjan
Аннотация
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.
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.