AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of voiding urosonography (VUS) compared with fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) under identical conditions and to evaluate potential reasons for false-negative VUS results, particularly regarding bladder concentrations of the US contrast agent, Levovist. METHODS: Fifty-six paediatric patients (M/F 34/22, mean age 2.3 y, age range 1 mo-14 y) underwent simultaneous VUS and VCUG under identical conditions. The bladder was filled by simultaneous administration of Levovist and the X-ray contrast medium, DIP Conray. Levovist concentrations in bladders were calculated using amounts of Levovist injected and total DIP Conray infused when reflux was first observed in either procedure. RESULTS: Sensitivities of VUS and VCUG for detection of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) were both 86%, assuming that VUR detected by either method represented a true-positive, and no reflux by either method represented a true-negative. Patients under 24-mo of age displayed a better VUS sensitivity, of 94%. Levovist concentrations in bladders ranged from 1.8% to 23%, with older children tending to demonstrate increased bladder capacity and lower concentration. All VUS false-negative units displayed Levovist bladder concentrations of less than 5%. CONCLUSION: The present simultaneous study suggests that: 1) the two techniques demonstrate similar sensitivity for detection of reflux; 2) sustained Levovist bladder concentrations of below 5% may not allow detection of reflux on VUS; and 3) VUS represents a suitable technique, particularly for small children whose bladder capacity is not so large.
AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of voiding urosonography (VUS) compared with fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) under identical conditions and to evaluate potential reasons for false-negative VUS results, particularly regarding bladder concentrations of the US contrast agent, Levovist. METHODS: Fifty-six paediatric patients (M/F 34/22, mean age 2.3 y, age range 1 mo-14 y) underwent simultaneous VUS and VCUG under identical conditions. The bladder was filled by simultaneous administration of Levovist and the X-ray contrast medium, DIP Conray. Levovist concentrations in bladders were calculated using amounts of Levovist injected and total DIP Conray infused when reflux was first observed in either procedure. RESULTS: Sensitivities of VUS and VCUG for detection of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) were both 86%, assuming that VUR detected by either method represented a true-positive, and no reflux by either method represented a true-negative. Patients under 24-mo of age displayed a better VUS sensitivity, of 94%. Levovist concentrations in bladders ranged from 1.8% to 23%, with older children tending to demonstrate increased bladder capacity and lower concentration. All VUS false-negative units displayed Levovist bladder concentrations of less than 5%. CONCLUSION: The present simultaneous study suggests that: 1) the two techniques demonstrate similar sensitivity for detection of reflux; 2) sustained Levovist bladder concentrations of below 5% may not allow detection of reflux on VUS; and 3) VUS represents a suitable technique, particularly for small children whose bladder capacity is not so large.