BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Avni, E. F.
Right arrow Articles by Schulman, C. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Avni, E. F.
Right arrow Articles by Schulman, C. C.

The British Journal of Radiology, Vol 70, Issue 838 977-982, Copyright © 1997 by British Institute of Radiology

ARTICLES

Can careful ultrasound examination of the urinary tract exclude vesicoureteric reflux in the neonate?

EF Avni, K Ayadi, F Rypens, M Hall and CC Schulman
Departments of Radiology, Erasme Hospital, Brussels, Belgium.

The aim of the study was to determine whether a urinary tract appearing normal when assessed by meticulous ultrasound (US) examination may coexist with vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) and whether a normal US scan can be used to exclude VUR, thereby avoiding unnecessary voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). The US features of 35 neonates with known VUR were reviewed. Criteria studied included pelvic dilatation above 7 mm on a transverse scan, calyceal or ureteral dilatation, pelvic or ureteral wall thickening, absence of the corticomedullary differentiation (CMD) and signs of renal dysplasia (small kidney, thinned or hyperechoic cortex and cortical cysts); all signs that have been shown to result from or to be associated with VUR. 57 refluxing renal units (RRU) were found among the 35 patients. VUR was bilateral in 22. Among the 57 RRU, at least one US anomaly that would have prompted VCUG was present in 50 (87.7%). Pelvic dilatation above 7 mm was present in 29 RRU (50.9%) only. Calyceal dilatation was present in 24 RRU, the dilatation involving the calyces but not the renal pelvis in seven. Ureteral dilatation was observed in 15 RRU. Pelvic or ureteral wall thickening was present in seven RRU. CMD was absent in 32 RRU (56.1%). US signs of dysplasia were found in 19 RRU. No US anomaly was found in seven RRU (12.3%) in six patients. A careful and meticulous US examination of the neonatal urinary tract allows the detection of over 87% of RRU by showing at least one sonographic abnormality. It is concluded that a normal appearing urinary tract on US does not usually coexist with VUR and that in such cases VCUG is not necessary.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
H. Schoellnast, F. Lindbichler, and M. Riccabona
Sonographic Diagnosis of Urethral Anomalies in Infants: Value of Perineal Sonography
J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2004; 23(6): 769 - 776.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 1997 by the British Institute of Radiology.