| Literature DB >> 30680245 |
Przemysław Bombiński1, Michał Brzewski1, Stanislaw Warchol2, Agnieszka Biejat1, Marcin Banasiuk3, Marek Gołębiowski4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diuretics improve visualization of the urinary tract in computed tomography urography in adults, as well as in magnetic resonance urography in adults and children. Also, diuretics can help to diagnose upper urinary tract obstruction in intravenous urography, ultrasonography or dynamic scintigraphy. However, there are still missing data on evaluation of furosemide usefulness in computed tomography urography examinations in children with suspected congenital anomalies of the urinary tracts.The aim of this study was to compare the homogeneity of contrast medium distribution in high-grade hydronephrosis in pediatric computed tomography urographies performed with and without use of diuretic (furosemide). MATERIALS ANDEntities:
Keywords: children; computed tomography urography; congenital anomalies of kidney and urinary tract; diuretics
Year: 2018 PMID: 30680245 PMCID: PMC6338812 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1742
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cent European J Urol ISSN: 2080-4806
Figure 1Grades 1–5 in diagnostic confidence grading scale. Scores 1 and 2 were deemed as non-diagnostic in clinical practice.
Diagnostic confidence grading scale
| Grade | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | No opacification | Non-diagnostic |
| 2 | Incomplete opacification – contrast medium present only in several calyces or part of the pelvis | Poor, affecting the interpretation |
| 3 | Complete, but inhomogeneous opacification, with contrast medium layering in calyces or pelvis – layering effect in 1–50% of collecting system volume | Acceptable, diagnostic |
| 4 | Complete, almost homogeneous opacification, with contrast medium layering in calyces or pelvis (layering effect in 51–99% of collecting system volume | Good |
| 5 | Complete and homogeneous opacification, no layering effect | Excellent |
Characteristics of patients included in this study
| Furosemide Group (n = 28) | Non-furosemide Group (n = 25) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (M:F) | 16 : 12 | 19 : 6 | p = 0.2 |
| Age (years) | 3.0 (1.2–9.3) | 1.5 (0.5–5.8) | p = 0.08 |
| Age (range in years) | 0.2–12.2 | 0.2–10.5 |
Interobserver agreement within the study groups (kappa)
| Furosemide Group | Non-furosemide Group | |
|---|---|---|
| Subjective image quality | 0.85 (almost perfect) | 0.69 (substantial) |
| Diagnostic confidence | 0.86 (almost perfect) | 0.96 (almost perfect) |