Investigative radiology · 2005
Multislice computed tomography-urography: intraindividual comparison of different preparation techniques for optimized depiction of the upper urinary tract in an animal model.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Kemper Joern, Regier Marc, Begemann Philipp G C, Stork Alexander, Adam Gerhard, Nolte-Ernsting Claus
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate intraindividually 3 different preparation protocols for achieving improved opacification and anatomic depiction of the upper urinary tract in multisclice computed tomography urography (MSCTU) using a porcine model.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: MSCTU was performed in 8 healthy pigs. Each animal underwent 3 MSCT urographies using 3 different preparations before the injection of contrast material: A, intravenous (iv) saline (250 mL); B, iv low-dose furosemide (0.1 mg/kg); and C, iv saline (250 mL) plus iv low-dose furosemide (0.1 mg/kg). Image analysis was performed blinded to the applied protocols and included the evaluation of the opacification and anatomic depiction of the upper urinary tract by means of graded scales. Ureteral distension was determined and density was measured within the collecting system.
RESULTS: Furosemide significantly improved both mean opacification scores and mean scores of anatomic depiction compared with the exclusive infusion of saline for MSCTU. There was no significant difference between the application of furosemide and the combination of furosemide plus saline. A significant increase of 25-26% for ureteral distension was found when furosemide was applied. Significant lower mean attenuation values (Hounsfield units) and standard deviation were found within the opacified urine for diuretic-enhanced MSCTU.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose furosemide injection is superior to saline infusion for achieving optimal enhancement in MSCTU. It is not necessary to combine furosemide and saline infusion. In MSCTU, low-dose furosemide is a simple add-on simplifying image acquisition timing and removing the need for abdominal compression devices.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: MSCTU was performed in 8 healthy pigs. Each animal underwent 3 MSCT urographies using 3 different preparations before the injection of contrast material: A, intravenous (iv) saline (250 mL); B, iv low-dose furosemide (0.1 mg/kg); and C, iv saline (250 mL) plus iv low-dose furosemide (0.1 mg/kg). Image analysis was performed blinded to the applied protocols and included the evaluation of the opacification and anatomic depiction of the upper urinary tract by means of graded scales. Ureteral distension was determined and density was measured within the collecting system.
RESULTS: Furosemide significantly improved both mean opacification scores and mean scores of anatomic depiction compared with the exclusive infusion of saline for MSCTU. There was no significant difference between the application of furosemide and the combination of furosemide plus saline. A significant increase of 25-26% for ureteral distension was found when furosemide was applied. Significant lower mean attenuation values (Hounsfield units) and standard deviation were found within the opacified urine for diuretic-enhanced MSCTU.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose furosemide injection is superior to saline infusion for achieving optimal enhancement in MSCTU. It is not necessary to combine furosemide and saline infusion. In MSCTU, low-dose furosemide is a simple add-on simplifying image acquisition timing and removing the need for abdominal compression devices.