Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2021
Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux and intrarenal reflux: a comparison of diagnostic performance with fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography.
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.
Kim Daehee, Choi Young Hun, Choi Gayoung, Lee Seulbi, Lee Seunghyun, Cho Yeon Jin, Lim Seon Hee, Kang Hee Gyung, Cheon Jung-Eun
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ce-VUS) using a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) and intrarenal reflux (IRR), and compared it with that of standard fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (VCUG).
METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive children from April to October 2019 were included in this study. ce-VUS and VCUG were performed simultaneously by two operators with intravesical infusion of a mixture of ultrasound contrast medium, iodinated contrast medium and water. Two pediatric radiologists independently reviewed the ce-VUS and VCUG images and reported the presence and degree of VUR (grades I-V), and the presence and type of IRR.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 63 urinary systems showed VUR. Interobserver agreement for VUR grading was very good for both examinations (κ=0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.92 for ce-VUS and κ=0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96 for VCUG). The detection rate of VUR showed no significant difference between the two examinations (P=0.370). Four cases of VUR were missed on ce-VUS, while one case of VUR was missed on VCUG. All four false-negative cases on ce-VUS were grade 1 VUR. The two examinations showed very good agreement regarding VUR grading (κ =0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96). IRR was more frequently detected with ce-VUS than with VCUG (10 cases with ce-VUS vs. 3 cases with VCUG, P=0.016).
CONCLUSION: ce-VUS showed very good agreement with VCUG for detecting grade 2 VUR and above, while grade 1 VUR was sometimes missed with ce-VUS. IRR was more frequently detected with ce-VUS than with VCUG.
METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive children from April to October 2019 were included in this study. ce-VUS and VCUG were performed simultaneously by two operators with intravesical infusion of a mixture of ultrasound contrast medium, iodinated contrast medium and water. Two pediatric radiologists independently reviewed the ce-VUS and VCUG images and reported the presence and degree of VUR (grades I-V), and the presence and type of IRR.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 63 urinary systems showed VUR. Interobserver agreement for VUR grading was very good for both examinations (κ=0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.92 for ce-VUS and κ=0.92; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.96 for VCUG). The detection rate of VUR showed no significant difference between the two examinations (P=0.370). Four cases of VUR were missed on ce-VUS, while one case of VUR was missed on VCUG. All four false-negative cases on ce-VUS were grade 1 VUR. The two examinations showed very good agreement regarding VUR grading (κ =0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96). IRR was more frequently detected with ce-VUS than with VCUG (10 cases with ce-VUS vs. 3 cases with VCUG, P=0.016).
CONCLUSION: ce-VUS showed very good agreement with VCUG for detecting grade 2 VUR and above, while grade 1 VUR was sometimes missed with ce-VUS. IRR was more frequently detected with ce-VUS than with VCUG.