Spencer J, Lindsell D, Mastorakou I
Department of Radiology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford.
BMJ. 1990 Jul 28;301(6745):221-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6745.221.
To compare ultrasonography with intravenous urography for investigating adults with proved urinary tract infection.
Prospective study of patients presenting consecutively for radiological investigation of urinary tract infection between October 1988 and December 1989. Both investigations were performed concurrently and performed independently on routine lists by different duty radiologists, each of whom knew the details on the request form but not the findings of the other investigation.
Radiology department of a teaching hospital.
158 Consecutive adults (89 women, 69 men; mean age 49.7 (range 18-83)) referred from general practitioners and hospital outpatient clinics with a history of proved urinary tract infection.
Urography and ultrasonography performed concurrently. When both examinations gave normal findings no clinical or radiological follow up was sought. All abnormal findings detected with either investigation were confirmed by subsequent imaging studies or by operative procedures.
Accuracy of detection of abnormalities of urinary system by ultrasonography compared with urography.
113 Patients (72%) had normal urographic and ultrasonic findings. Overall, ultrasonography concurred with the findings of urography in 149 (94%) patients, and when a single abdominal radiograph was included in the procedure, in 152 (96%). Ultrasonography missed only one important diagnosis, that of mild papillary necrosis in normal sized kidneys in a diabetic patient. It detected one early bladder tumour not visible on urography and was able to clarify the nature of renal masses (simple cysts) evident on three urograms.
Ultrasonography provides a safe and accurate method of imaging the urinary tract in adults with infection. Combined with a plain abdominal radiograph, it should replace urography as the initial imaging investigation in these patients. Major savings would result from adopting this policy, and the risks to patients from ionising radiation and intravenous contrast media would be appreciably reduced.
比较超声检查与静脉肾盂造影在已确诊为尿路感染的成人患者中的应用。
对1988年10月至1989年12月间连续前来进行尿路感染放射学检查的患者进行前瞻性研究。两项检查同时进行,由不同的值班放射科医生在常规检查清单上独立完成,每位医生都了解申请表上的详细信息,但不了解另一项检查的结果。
一家教学医院的放射科。
158名连续的成年人(89名女性,69名男性;平均年龄49.7岁(范围18 - 83岁)),由全科医生和医院门诊转诊而来,有确诊的尿路感染病史。
同时进行肾盂造影和超声检查。当两项检查结果均正常时,无需进行临床或放射学随访。通过后续影像学检查或手术程序对两项检查中发现的所有异常结果进行确认。
与肾盂造影相比,超声检查对泌尿系统异常的检测准确性。
113名患者(72%)的肾盂造影和超声检查结果正常。总体而言,超声检查与肾盂造影结果一致的患者有149名(94%),若在检查过程中加入一张腹部平片,则一致的患者有152名(96%)。超声检查仅漏诊了一例重要诊断,即一名糖尿病患者正常大小肾脏中的轻度乳头坏死。它检测出一例肾盂造影未显示的早期膀胱肿瘤,并能够明确三张肾盂造影片上可见肾肿块(单纯囊肿)的性质。
超声检查为患有感染的成人泌尿系统成像提供了一种安全、准确的方法。结合腹部平片,它应取代肾盂造影成为这些患者的初始影像学检查。采用这一策略将大幅节省费用,同时患者因电离辐射和静脉造影剂所面临的风险也将显著降低。