Objectives: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of performing computed tomography (CT) urogram in the prone position in terms of diagnosis. Methods: CT urograms of 208 patients imaged randomly in the prone and supine positions were included in this study. A total of 199 patients and 370 collecting systems were examined in total. Axial raw data and reconstructed coronal thin and thick MIP images with a slice thickness of 5 mm were evaluated by 2 independent radiologists blinded to the initial diagnosis. Renal collecting system, ureters, and bladder were included in radiological evaluation. Anatomically, the renal collecting system was separated into 7 regions. Filling and dilatation of collecting systems were evaluated via images at urogram phase by scoring. Results: Filling in lower pole infundibulum (p = 0.006), distal ureter (p = 0.006); and highly dilated lower pole calyx (p = 0.020), pelvis (p = 0.006), and bladder (p < 0.001) were determined to be better in images in the prone position compared to the supine position. There were no statistical differences in other regions. Conclusion: Better contrast material filling is achieved in dilated or non-dilated lower pole collecting system, dilated renal pelvis, non-dilated distal ureter of kidney, and in the bladder only by imaging the urogram phase in the prone position compared to the supine position. Additionally, presence of dilatation is a factor that could adversely affect filling. Studies in the future may investigate the contribution of prone positioning to CT urogram with larger series comparing it with other methods and modalities.

Keywords:
Computed tomography, Urography, Supine, Prone, MSCT
1.
Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, Essenmacher KR, Verga M, Glickman MG, et al: Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995; 194: 789–794.
2.
Niall O, Russell J, MacGregor R, Duncan H, Mullins J: A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol 1999; 161: 534–537.
3.
Koelliker SL, Cronan JJ: Acute urinary tract obstruction. Imaging update. Urol Clin North Am 1997; 24: 571–582.
4.
Chong WK, Wysoki M, Heller LG, Zegel HG: Renal carcinoma presenting with flank pain: a potential drawback of unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 667–669.
5.
McNicholas M , Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK, Sheiman RG, Zormpala A, Prassopoulos PK, et al: Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998: 170: 1261–1267.
6.
Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977: 159–174.
7.
Morcos SK: Computed tomography urography technique, indications and limitations. Curr Opin Urol 2007; 17: 56–64.
8.
McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD, Silverman SG: Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 2002; 225: 783–790.
9.
Sanyal R, Deshmukh A, Singh Sheorain V, Taori K: CT urography: a comparison of strategies for upper urinary tract opacification. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1262–1266.
10.
Chai RY, Jhaveri K, Saini S, Hahn PF, Nichols S, Mueller PR: Comprehensive evaluation of patients with haematuria on multi-slice computed tomography scanner: protocol design and preliminary observations. Australas Radiol 2001; 45: 536–538.
11.
Wang ZJ, Coakley FV, Joe BN, Qayyum A, Meng MV, Yeh BM: Multidetector row CT urography: does supine or prone positioning produce better pelvecalyceal and ureteral opacification? Clin Imaging 2009; 33: 369–373.
12.
Dyer RB, Chen MY, Zagoria RJ: Intravenous urography: technique and interpretation. Radio-Graphics 2001; 21: 799–821.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.