Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography
Yıl: 2020 Cilt: 34 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 215 - 220 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 19-06-2021
Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography
Öz: Objective: Computed Tomography Urography (CTU) is an imaging method used to assess thekidneys, ureters, and bladder in the excretory phase by computed tomography (CT) withintravenous contrast media (IVCM). Our aim is to compare the five different methods performed forpatient preparation prior to CTU, and to demonstrate their superiorities and disadvantagescompared to each other.Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients who underwent CTU scans with an indication as aresult of their examinations were included in our study. These cases were randomly divided into 5groups of 20. Water was applied to the first group. Saline was administered to the second group. Inthe third group, 0.1 mg/kg furosemide was administered intravenously following a 250 mL saline.Intravenous furosemide was administered to the fourth group. Intravenous furosemide wasadministered to the fifth group after they received water. Ureters were compared with each otheraccording to the degree of opacification in proximal, medial, and distal segments in standard CTU.Results: By comparing the groups in pairs; there was a significant difference between Group II andthe other four groups for the proximal ureter segment, and between Group II and Group III and IVfor the medial and distal ureter segments (P<0.05). Conclusion: We believe that intravenous saline didn’t increase ureter opacification compared tothe other groups due to different patient populations and hydration conditions, instead salineincreased ureter contractions and homogeneous diuresis related to furosemide.
Anahtar Kelime: Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Ürografisinde Farklı Hazırlık Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması
Öz: Amaç: Bilgisayarlı Tomografi Ürografi (BTÜ), intravenöz kontrast madde (İVKM) kullanılarak ekskretuar fazda böbrekler, üreterler ve mesaneyi değerlendirmek için kullanılan bir görüntüleme yöntemidir. Amacımız BTÜ öncesi hasta hazırlığı için uygulanan beş farklı yöntemi kıyaslayarak üstünlüklerini ve dezavantajlarını ortaya koymaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada muayeneleri sonucunda endikasyonla BTÜ taraması yapılan toplam 100 hasta dahil edildi. Olgular rastlantısal olarak 20‘şerli 5 gruba ayrıldı. Birinci gruba su içirildi. İkinci gruba salin infüzyonu yapıldı. Üçüncü gruba salin infüzyonu sonrası furosemid intravenöz olarak uygulandı. Dördüncü gruba intravenöz furosemid verildi. Beşinci gruba su içirilmesi sonrasında intravenöz furosemid yapıldı. Standart BTÜ ile üreterler proksimal, orta ve distal segmentlerde opasifikasyon derecelerine göre birbirleri ile karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Grupların ikili olarak karşılaştırılmasında; proksimal üreter segmenti için Grup II ile diğer dört grup arasında, medial ve distal üreter segmentleri için Grup II ile Grup III ve IV arasında anlamlı farklılık saptandı (P<0.05). Sonuç: İntravenöz salinin farklı hasta popülasyonu ve hidrasyon durumu nedeniyle diğer gruplara göre üreter opasifikasyonunu artırmadığını, salinin üreterlerin peristaltik kasılmalarını ve furosemidin sağladığı homojen diürezi arttırdığını düşünüyoruz.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Dodig D, Žuža I, Vujaklija DV, et al. CT urography: Principles and indications. Medicina fluminensis 2017; 53: 292-299.
- 2. Potenta SE, D’Agostino R, Sternberg KM, et al. CT urography for evaluation of the ureter. RadioGraphics 2015; 35: 709-726.
- 3. Juri H , Tsuboyama T, Koyama M, et al. Assessment of the ability of CT urography with low-dose multi-phasic excretory phases for opacification of the urinary system. PLoS One. 2017; 12: 1-10.
- 4. Türkbey B, Akpinar E, Ozer C, et al. Multidetector CT technique and imaging findings of urinary stone disease: An expanded review. Diagn Interv Radiol 2010; 16: 134- 144.
- 5. Vrtiska TJ, Hartman RP, Kofler JM, et al. Spatial Resolution and radiation dose of a 64-MDCT scanner compared with published CT urography protocols. AJR 2009; 192: 941-948.
- 6. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG, et al. CT urography working group of the european society of urogenital radiology (ESUR). CT urography: Definition, indications and techniques. A guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 4-17.
- 7. Morcos SK. Bilgisayarlı tomografik ürografi tekniği, endikasyonlar ve sınırlamalar. Current Opinion in Urology 2007; 17: 56-64.
- 8. Dahlman P, Jangland L, Segelsjö M, et al. Optimization of computed tomography urography protocol, 1997 to 2008: Effects on radiation dose. Acta Radiologica 2009; 50: 446- 454.
- 9. Lupescu IG, Marica OL. CT urography: How, when, why? Revista Românæ de Urologie 2012; 11: 17-20.
- 10. Moloney F, Murphy KP, Twomey M, O'Connor OJ, Maher MM. Haematuria: An imaging guide. Adv Urol 2014; 2014: 414125.
- 11. Dillman JR, Caoili EM, Cohan RH. Multi-detector CT urography: A one-stop renal and urinary tract imaging modality. Abdominal Imaging 2007; 32: 519-529.
- 12. Kawamoto S, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Opacification of the collecting system and ureters on excretory- phase CT using oral water as contrast medium. AJR 2006; 186: 136- 140.
- 13. Hage L, Boll D, Brantner P, et al. CT-Urography: Comparison of different methods for increasing the intraabdominal pressure. International Journal of Diagnostic Imaging 2018; 5: 25-30.
- 14. Lee D, Cho ES, Kim JH, et al. Optimization of split-bolus ct urography: Effect of differences in allocation of contrast medium and prolongation of imaging delay. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: 10-17.
- 15. Moore B, Harvin H, Chow L. Pitfalls in MDCT urography. Appl Radiol 2018; 47: 16-21.
- 16. Sun H, Xue H, Liu W, et al. Effects of Saline Administration, abdominal compression, and prolongation of acquisition delay on ımage quality ımprovement of CT urography. Chin Med Sci J 2012; 27: 201-206.
- 17. Sanyal R, Deshmukh A, Singh Sheorain V, et al. CT urography: A comparison of strategies for upper urinary tract opacification. Eur Radiol; 2006; 5: 18-36.
- 18. Bellin MF, Renard-Penna R, Conort P, et al. Helical CT evaluation of the chemical composition of urinary tract calculi with a discriminant analysis of CT-attenuation values and density. Eur Radiol 2004; 14: 2134-2140.
- 19. Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES Jr. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology 2009; 250: 309- 323.
- 20. Raman SP, Horton KM, Fishman EK. MDCT evaluation of ureteral tumors: Advantages of 3D reconstruction and volume visualization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 1239-1247.
- 21. Maheshwari E, O’Malley ME, Ghai S, et al. Split-bolus MDCT urography: Upper tract opacification and performance for upper tract tumors in patients with hematuria. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 453-458.
APA | Gundogan Bozdag P, SERHATLIOGLU S, Kocakoc E, POYRAZ A (2020). Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. , 215 - 220. |
Chicago | Gundogan Bozdag Pinar,SERHATLIOGLU SELAMI,Kocakoc Ercan,POYRAZ AHMET KURSAD Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. (2020): 215 - 220. |
MLA | Gundogan Bozdag Pinar,SERHATLIOGLU SELAMI,Kocakoc Ercan,POYRAZ AHMET KURSAD Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. , 2020, ss.215 - 220. |
AMA | Gundogan Bozdag P,SERHATLIOGLU S,Kocakoc E,POYRAZ A Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. . 2020; 215 - 220. |
Vancouver | Gundogan Bozdag P,SERHATLIOGLU S,Kocakoc E,POYRAZ A Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. . 2020; 215 - 220. |
IEEE | Gundogan Bozdag P,SERHATLIOGLU S,Kocakoc E,POYRAZ A "Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography." , ss.215 - 220, 2020. |
ISNAD | Gundogan Bozdag, Pinar vd. "Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography". (2020), 215-220. |
APA | Gundogan Bozdag P, SERHATLIOGLU S, Kocakoc E, POYRAZ A (2020). Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi, 34(3), 215 - 220. |
Chicago | Gundogan Bozdag Pinar,SERHATLIOGLU SELAMI,Kocakoc Ercan,POYRAZ AHMET KURSAD Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi 34, no.3 (2020): 215 - 220. |
MLA | Gundogan Bozdag Pinar,SERHATLIOGLU SELAMI,Kocakoc Ercan,POYRAZ AHMET KURSAD Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi, vol.34, no.3, 2020, ss.215 - 220. |
AMA | Gundogan Bozdag P,SERHATLIOGLU S,Kocakoc E,POYRAZ A Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi. 2020; 34(3): 215 - 220. |
Vancouver | Gundogan Bozdag P,SERHATLIOGLU S,Kocakoc E,POYRAZ A Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography. Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi. 2020; 34(3): 215 - 220. |
IEEE | Gundogan Bozdag P,SERHATLIOGLU S,Kocakoc E,POYRAZ A "Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography." Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi, 34, ss.215 - 220, 2020. |
ISNAD | Gundogan Bozdag, Pinar vd. "Comparisons of Different Preparation Methods in Computed Tomography Urography". Fırat Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Tıp Dergisi 34/3 (2020), 215-220. |