The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic yield of intravenous urography (IVU) compared to ultrasound (US) and computerized tomography (CT) in cases of renal colic, suspected pelvic and abdominal malignancies, suspected renal mass, and acute pyelonephritis. We retrospectively analyzed the case charts of 216 consecutive patients. The patients had been referred to the Department of Radiology by different hospital departments and local general practitioners. All had undergone clinical examination, US and IVU, in that order. When deemed necessary, conventional tomography was performed. Patients with renal masses also underwent CT. In cases without renal colic and normal US examination, the subsequent IVU failed to detect any further important pathology. Hydronephrosis was equally well detected using US and IVU, however, the level of obstruction was better determined using delayed X-ray films. In 24% of cases of renal colics the initial US was normal, however, the IVU revealed ureteric obstruction. Repeat US 8–12 h later always showed hydronephrosis. In 6 of 34 solid renal masses, IVU and conventional tomography failed to make the correct diagnosis, but never could the patient be spared a subsequent CT. IVU is only indicated if US shows hydronephrosis. In cases of renal colic, repeat US is necessary to diagnose the possibly developing hydronephrosis. Clinical history, US and a plain abdominal image will suffice to make the diagnosis. Renal masses always require CT. In these cases, IVU is not necessary. There is no indication left for conventional renal tomographies.

Keywords:
Intravenous urography, Ultrasound, Computerized tomography, Hydronephrosis, Nephrolithiasis, Hematuria
This content is only available via PDF.
© 1997 S. Karger AG, Basel
1997
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.