Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die bildgebenden Verfahren und ihre Rolle beim Behandlungsmanagement von Patienten mit akutem Flankenschmerz

Imaging techniques and their impact in treatment management of patients with acute flank pain

  • Niere und ableitende Harnwege
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ziele der Übersichtsarbeit sind eine zusammenfassende Darstellung der an der Universitätsklinik für Urologie in Wien angewendeten Untersuchungstechniken zur Abklärung von akutem Flankenschmerz bzw. zur Diagnostik des Steinleidens und die Bewertung ihrer Effizienz und Bedeutung im Therapiemanagement. Die Literatur zum Thema „intravenöse Urographie (IVU) vs. Computertomographie (CT)“ zur Diagnostik der Urolithiasis bzw. Nephrolithiasis ist reichhaltig. In den letzten Jahren überwiegen zunehmend die Befürworter der CT. An der Universitätsklinik für Urologie in Wien kommen neben der nativen CT weiterhin konventionelle Verfahren wie die Sonographie und die IVU häufig zum Einsatz. In dieser Arbeit werden die Vorzüge und Nachteile der verschiedenen bildgebenden Verfahren in der Steindiagnostik aufgezeigt und ihr Stellenwert beim therapeutischen Management von Patienten mit akutem Flankenschmerz evaluiert.

Abstract

The purpose of this overview is to provide a general summary of the imaging techniques applied at the Vienna Hospital for the investigation of acute flank pain and the diagnosis of stone disease and the evaluation of their efficacy and impact on therapy management. The number of publications on the issue of “intravenous urography (IVU) vs computed tomography (CT)” is abundant; in recent years, advocates of CT make up the majority. In the Department of Urology at the Vienna Hospital, conventional techniques such as ultrasound and IVU besides UHCT still play an important role. This overview presents the advantages and disadvantages of the various imaging techniques for diagnosis of stone disease and evaluates their significance regarding therapy management of patients with acute flank pain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2a, b
Abb. 3a, b
Abb. 4a–d
Abb. 5
Abb. 6a, b
Abb. 7a–c
Abb. 8a–c
Abb. 9a–c
Abb. 10a–d
Abb. 11a–d
Abb. 12a, b
Abb. 13a–c
Abb. 14
Abb. 15a, b
Abb. 16a, b

Literatur

  1. Amis ES Jr (1999) Epitaph for the urogram. Radiology 213:639–640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aslaksen A, Gothlin JH (1990) Ultrasonic diagnosis of ureteral calculi in patients with acute flank pain. Eur J Radiol 11:87–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bell TV, Fenlon HM, Davison BD et al. (1998) Unenhanced helical CT criteria to differentiate distal ureteral calculi from pelvic phleboliths. Radiology 207:363–367

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boeminghaus H (1932) Über die Funktion der Niere bei akutem komplettem Ureterverschluss. Diagnostische und prognostische Bedeutung der intravenösen Pyelographie. Arch Klin Chir 17:109–115

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, Goldman SM, Sandler CM (1999) Ureterolithiasis: value of the tail sign in differentiating phleboliths from ureteral calculi at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology 211:619–621

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brändle E, Hautmann R (1997) Indikation zur Steintherapie. Urologe [A] 6:582–584

  7. Brändle E, Hautmann R (1997) Diagnostik des Harnsteinleidens. Urologe [A] 6:579–581

  8. Brändle E, Hautmann R (1997) Metaphylaxe des Harnsteinleidens. Urologe [A] 6:588–590

  9. Caro JJ, Trindade E, McGregor M (1991) The risks of death and of severe nonfatal reactions with high- vs low-osmolality contrast media: a metaanalysis. AJR 156:825–832

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Catalano O, Nunziata A, Altei F, Siani A (2002) Suspected ureteral colic: primary helical CT versus selective helical CT after unenhanced radiography and sonography. AJR 178:379–387

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Colistro R, Torreggiani WC, Lyburn ID et al. (2002) Unenhanced helical CT in the investigation of acute flank pain. Radiology 57:435–441

    Google Scholar 

  12. Coll DM, Varanelli MJ, Smith RC (2002) Relationship of spontaneous passage of ureteral calculi to stone size and location as revealed by unenhanced helical CT. AJR 178:101–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dalla Palma L (2001) What is left of i.v. urography? Eur Radiol 11:931–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dalla Palma L, Stacul F, Bazzocchi M et al. (1993) Ultrasonography and plain film versus intravenous urography in ureteric colic. Clin Radiol 47:333–336

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dalla Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F (2001) Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 11:4–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Denton ER, Mackenzie A, Greenwell T, Popert R, Rankin SC (1999) Unenhanced helical CT for renal colic: is the radiation dose justifiable? Clin Radiol 54:444–447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deyoe LA, Cronan JJ, Breslaw BH, Ridlen MS (1995) New techniques of ultrasound and color Doppler in the prospective evaluation of acute renal obstruction. Do they replace the intravenous urogram? Abdom Imaging 20:58–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Douglas S, Scheer M, Lumerman JH, Mellinger BC, Stillman CA, Lane MJ (2000) Alternative or additional diagnoses on unenhanced helical computed tomography for suspected renal colic: experience with 1000 consecutive examinations. Urology 56:53–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ernst RD, Kavashina, Goldman SM et al. (1999) Non-contrast helical CT of renal calculus: an update. Appl Radiol 28:8–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Evan AP, Willis LR, Lingeman JE, McAteer JA (1998) Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy. Nephron 78:1–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Faerber GJ (2001) Pediatric urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 11(4):385–389

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fielding JR, Steele G, Fox LA, Heller H, Loughlin KR (1997) Spiral computerized tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain: a replacement for excretory urography. J Urol 157:2071–2073

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gillespie RS, Stapleton FB (2004) Nephrolithiasis in children. Pediatr Rev 25(4):131–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gupta M, Bolton DM, Irby P, Hubner W, Wolf JS, Hattner RS, Stoller ML (1995) The effect of newer generation lithotripsy upon renal function assessed by nuclear scintigraphy. J Urol 154:947–950

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Haddad MC, Sharif HS, Shahed MS et al. (1992) Renal colic: diagnosis and outcome. Radiology 184:83–88

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamm M, Knöpfle E, Wartenberg S, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Harzmann R (2002) Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography fort he evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol 167:1687–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heinz-Peer G, Kratzik C (2003) Uroradiologie. In: Lechner G, Breitenseher M (Hrsg) Lehrbuch der Radiologisch-Klinischen Diagnostik. Maudrich, Wien, S 327–356

  28. Hellmer H (1935) On the technique in urography and the Roentgen picture in acute renal and ureteral stasis. Acta Radiol 16:51–55

    Google Scholar 

  29. Heneghan JP, Dalrymple NC, Verga M et al. (1997) Soft-tissue „rim“ sign in the diagnosis of ureteral calculi with use of unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 202:709–711

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hermieu J, Prevot M, Ravery V et al. (1999) Urolithiasis and the protease inhibitor indinavir. Eur Urol 35:239–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK et al. (2002) Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study. J Urol 167:1968–1971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jung A, Kaminska A (2000) Etiology of nephrolithiasis in children: own observation. Pol Merkuriusz Lek 8(46):172–173

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Boridy IC, Takahashi N, Benson GS, Goldman SM (1997) Unenhanced helical CT of ureterolithiasis: value of the tissue rim sign. AJR 168:997–1000

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Krinsky G (1996) Unenhanced helical CT in patients with acute flank pain and renal infarction: the need for contrast material in selected cases. AJR 167:282–283

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuvezdic H, Tucak A, Peric N, Zoric I, Galic R (2003) ESWL treatment of urinary stones in children — the overwiev of 14 years of experience. Coll Anthropol 27(1):71–75

    Google Scholar 

  36. Levine JA, Neitlich J, Verga M et al. (1997) Ureteral calculi in patients with flank pain: correlation of plain radiography with unenhanced helical CT. Radiology 204:27–31

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu W, Esler SJ, Kenny BJ, Goh RH, Rainbow AJ, Stevenson GW (2000) Low-dose nonenhanced helical CT of renal colic: assessment of ureteric stone detection and measurement of effective dose equivalent. Radiology 215:51–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marberger M (1999) Urinary stones. Curr Opin Urol 9:315–317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR, Buckley RG, Donovan MS, Graham IR, Goff WB, Kane CJ (1998) Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogramin the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52:982–987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mostatfavi MR, Ernst SD, Saltzman B (1998) Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol 159:673–675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mutgi A, Williams JW, Nettleman M (1991) Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram. Arch Intern Med 151:1589–1592

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nachmann MM, Harkaway RC, Summerton SL et al. (2000) Helical CT scanning: the primary Imaging modality for acute flank pain. Am J Emerg Med 18:649–651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Niall O, Russell J, MacGregor R et al. (1999) A comparison of noncontrast computerized tomography with excretory urography in the assessment of acute flank pain. J Urol 161:534–537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nolte-Ernsting C (2004) Stand der radiologischen Bildgebung in der Diagnostik von Erkrankungen der Nieren und oberen Harnwege bei Erwachsenen. Radiologe 2:151–176

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nolte-Ernsting CCA, Staatz G, Tacke J, Günther RW (2003) MR urography today. Abdom Imaging 28:191–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Nolte-Ernsting C, Staatz G, Wildberger J, Adam G (2003) MR-Urography and CT-Urography: Prinzipien, Untersuchungstechniken, Anwendungsmöglichkeiten. Fortschr Röntgenstr 175:211–222

  47. Radermacher J (2003) Internist 44:1413–1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Reiter WJ, Schon-Peunersdorfer H, Dorfinger K, Hofbauer J, Marberger M (1999) Frequency of urolithiasis in HIV seropositive individuals treated with indinavir is higher than previously assumed. J Urol 161:1082–1084

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ripolles T, Agramunt M, Errando J, Martinez MJ, Coronel B, Morales M (2004) Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT. A prospective study in 66 patients. Eur Radiol 14:129–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Sandhu C, Anson KM, Patel U (2003) Urinary tract stones, part I: role of radiological imaging in diagnosis and treatment planning. Clin Radiol 58:415–421

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sandhu C, Anson KM, Patel U (2003) Urinary tract stones, part II: current status of treatment. Clin Radiol 58:422–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Saw KC, McAteer JA, Monga AG, Chua GT, Lingeman JE, Williams JC (2000) Helical CT of urinary calculi: effect of stone composition, stone size and scan collimation. AJR 175:329–332

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sheir KZ, Gad H (2003) Prospective study of the effects of shock wavelithotrpisy on renal function: role of post-shock wave lithotripsy obstruction. Urol 61:1102–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sinclair D, Wilson S, Toi A, Greenspan L (1989) The evaluation of suspected renal colic: ultrasound scan versus excretory urography. Ann Emerg Med 18:556–559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA et al. (1995) Acute flank pain: comparison of unenhanced-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 194:789–794

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy Sh, Rosenfield AT (1996) Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR 166:97–101

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Sommer FG, Jeffrey RB, Rubin GD et al. (1995) Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR 165:509–513

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sourtzis S, Thibeau, Damry N, Raslan A, Vandendris M, Bellemans M (1999) Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR 172:1491–1494

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Stapleton FB (2002) Childhood stones. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 31(4):1001–1015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sweg-Hsien Wu D, Stoller ML (2000) Indinavir urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol 10:557–561

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Swick M (1929) Demonstration of the kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra by x-rays using intravenous administration of a new contrast medium uroselectan. Klin Wochenschr 8:2085–2087

    Google Scholar 

  62. Takahashi N, Kawashima A, Ernst RD et al. (1998) Ureterolithiasis: can clinical outcome be predicted with unenhanced helical CT? Radiology 208:97–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Thomson JM, Glocer J, Abbott C, Maling T (2001) Computed tomography versus intravenous urography in diagnosis of acute flank pain from urolithiasis: a randomized study comparing imaging costs and radiation dose. Australas Radiol 45:291–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Tolley DA, Downey P (1999) Current advances in shock wave lithotripsy. Curr Opin Urol 9:319–323

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Turk T, Jenkins A (1999) A comparison of ureteroskopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal urethral calculi. J Urol 161:45–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, Leder RA, Smith RH, Nelson RH, Preminger GM (1998) Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 160:679–684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Willia LR, Evan AP, Connors BA, Reed G, Fineberg NS, Lingeman JA (1996) Effects of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy to one kidney on bilateral glomerular filtration rate and PAH clearance in minipigs. J Urol 156:1502–1506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yilmaz S, Sindel T, Arslan G et al. (1998) Renal colic: comparison of spiral CT, US and IVU in the detection of ureteral calculi. Eur Radiol 8:212–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für chirurgische Fächer, Klinik für Radiodiagnostik der Medizinischen Universität Wien

    A. Grosse, C. A. Grosse & G. Heinz-Peer

  2. Klinik für Urologie, Medizinische Universität Wien

    J. Mauermann

  3. Abteilung für chirurgische Fächer, Klinik für Radiodiagnostik der Medizinischen Universität, Währinger Gürtel 18–20/8F, A-1090, Wien, Österreich

    A. Grosse

Authors
  1. A. Grosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. A. Grosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Mauermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Heinz-Peer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Grosse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grosse, A., Grosse, C.A., Mauermann, J. et al. Die bildgebenden Verfahren und ihre Rolle beim Behandlungsmanagement von Patienten mit akutem Flankenschmerz. Radiologe 45, 871–886 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1209-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1209-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation