Orvosi hetilap · 2007
[Magnetic resonance urography in the diagnosis of the ectopic ureters].
Клинический случайАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Straub Péter, Horváth Gyula, Dávidovics Sándor, Pintér András
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Ectopic ureters are often very difficult to diagnose with conventional diagnostic modalities (physical examination, ultrasound, intravenous urography, cystography, urethro-cystoscopy, isotop examinations) in children.
AIM OF THE STUDY: The authors report their experience with a relatively new method, the magnetic resonance urography (MRU) diagnosing ectopic ureters in childhood.
METHOD: MRU was used in 7 girls to detect an ectopic ureter in the last 3 years. On the basis of typical clinical signs, an ectopic ureter was suspected in all patients, but it could not be demonstrated by conventional diagnostic methods. Thus, MRU was done to confirm the suspected diagnosis.
RESULTS: In all of the 7 patients, the examinations demonstrated ectopic ureters with the intraoperative findings further confirming the pre-operative diagnosis. In 2 patients, the intraoperative findings of the upper urinary tract anomalies were slightly different from the MRU report.
CONCLUSION: The MRU is a reliable diagnostic method to diagnose ectopic ureters which are not easily detectable with conventional diagnostic modalities.
AIM OF THE STUDY: The authors report their experience with a relatively new method, the magnetic resonance urography (MRU) diagnosing ectopic ureters in childhood.
METHOD: MRU was used in 7 girls to detect an ectopic ureter in the last 3 years. On the basis of typical clinical signs, an ectopic ureter was suspected in all patients, but it could not be demonstrated by conventional diagnostic methods. Thus, MRU was done to confirm the suspected diagnosis.
RESULTS: In all of the 7 patients, the examinations demonstrated ectopic ureters with the intraoperative findings further confirming the pre-operative diagnosis. In 2 patients, the intraoperative findings of the upper urinary tract anomalies were slightly different from the MRU report.
CONCLUSION: The MRU is a reliable diagnostic method to diagnose ectopic ureters which are not easily detectable with conventional diagnostic modalities.