Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stellenwert des Ultraschalls in der Urologie

The impact of ultrasound in urology

Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Zusammenfassung

Der Ultraschall nimmt in der primären Diagnostik in der Urologie einen wichtigen Stellenwert ein – sei es als orientierende Untersuchung bei akuten Erkrankungen wie z. B. Nierenkolik, Hodentorsion oder geringgradigen Nierentraumata oder als Verlaufskontrolle bei chronischen Erkrankungen wie z. B. vesikoureteralem Reflux, Restharnbestimmung bei benignem Prostatasyndrom (BPS), Fertilitätsabklärung oder Karzinomdetektion. Die Untersuchung kann schnell, kostengünstig und v. a. ohne Strahlenbelastung sowohl im niedergelassenen Bereich als auch im stationären klinischen Alltag durchgeführt werden. Der Einsatz innovativer Techniken wie z. B. dem kontrastverstärkten Ultraschall (CEUS) oder der Echtzeitelastographie (RTE) könnte dazu führen, dass das Anwendungsgebiet der Sonographie erweitert wird. Trotz der breiten Verfügbarkeit und der genannten Vorteile bleibt die diagnostische Aussagekraft der Sonographie in manchen Bereichen eingeschränkt, sodass der Verifizierung der sonographischen Befunde und der umfassenden Abklärung mit einer weiteren Bildgebung wie z. B. CT oder MRT eine wichtige Rolle zukommt.

Abstract

Ultrasound is of great importance in the diagnosis of acute and chronic diseases in urology, such as kidney colic, testicular torsion, low-grade kidney trauma or for follow-up of vesicoureteral reflux, evaluation of infertility, measurement of residual urinary volume and the detection of cancer. An ultrasound examination is time and cost-effective without exposure to ionizing radiation and is routinely performed by practitioners as well as in the clinical daily routine. With technical innovations, such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound or real time elastography, it would for instance be possible to extend the application field of ultrasound. However, in some fields of investigation ultrasound still lacks accuracy and despite its many advantages the validity of ultrasound findings sometimes has to be verified with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

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. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10
Abb. 11
Abb. 12
Abb. 13
Abb. 14
Abb. 15
Abb. 16

Literatur

  1. Pickuth D (1993) Sonographie – systematisch. Bon-MED, Lorch

  2. Albrecht T, Hohmann J (2004) Kontrastmittel in der Sonographie. http://wwwvisions-journalcom/D-2004-V09/S-A5pdf

  3. Fleischer AC, Donnelly EF, Grippo RJ et al (2004) Quantification of tumor vascularity with contrast-enhanced sonography: correlation with magnetic resonance imaging and fluorodeoxyglucose autoradiography in an implanted tumor. J Ultrasound Med 23:37–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wink MH, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna P et al (2007) Ultrasonography of renal masses using contrast pulse sequence imaging: a pilot study. J Endourol 21:466–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gramiak R, Shah PM (1968) Echocardiography of the aortic root. Invest Radiol 3:356–366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T et al (2008) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – update 2008. Ultraschall Med 29:28–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Siracusano S, Bertolotto M, Ciciliato S et al (2011) The current role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) imaging in the evaluation of renl pathology. World J Urol. [Epub ahead of print]

  8. Ignee A, Straub B, Brix D et al (2010) The value of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the characterisation of patients with renal masses. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 46(4):275–290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoeppler GM, Buchner A, Zaak D et al (2010) Detection of urinary leakage after radical retropubic prostatectomy by contrast enhanced ultrasound – do we still need conventional retrograde cystography? BJU Int 106(11):1632–1637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H et al (1991) Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 13:111–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Pallwein L, Aigner F, Faschingbauer R et al (2008) Prostate cancer diagnosis: value of real-time elastography. Abdom Imaging 33:729–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McAndrew JD, Corriere JN Jr (1994) Radiographic evaluation of renal trauma: evaluation of 1103 consecutive patients. Br J Urol 73:352–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick LM et al (2009) Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 373:1455–1461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kanz KG, Paul AO, Lefering R et al (2010) Trauma management incorporating focused assessment with computed tomography in trauma (FACTT) – potential effect on survival. J Trauma Manag Outcomes 4(1):4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pollack HM, Wein AJ (1989) Imaging of renal trauma. Radiology 172:297–308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Arena F, Peracchia G, di Stefano C et al (1997) The role of echotomography in minor renal traumatology. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense 68:53–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ascenti G, Mazziotti S, Zimbaro G et al (2007) Complex cystic renal masses: characterization with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 243:158–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park BK, Kim B, Kim SH et al (2007) Assessment of cystic renal masses based on Bosniak classification: comparison of CT and contrast-enhanced US. Eur J Radiol 61:310–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tamai H, Takiguchi Y, Oka M et al (2005) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors. J Ultrasound Med 24:1635–1640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mitterberger M, Pelzer A, Colleselli D et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of prostate cancer and kidney lesions. Eur J Radiol 64:231–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Varma G, Nair N, Salim A, Marickar YM (2009) Investigations for recognizing urinary stone. Urol Res 37:349–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Middleton WD, Dodds WJ, Lawson TL, Foley WD (1988) Renal calculi: sensitivity for detection with US. Radiology 167:239–244

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kennish SJ, Bhatnagar P, Wah TM et al (2008) Is the KUB radiograph redundant for investigating acute ureteric colic in the non-contrast enhanced computed tomography era? Clin Radiol 63:1131–1135

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR et al (1998) Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52:982–987

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N et al (1999) Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1491–1494

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Shine S (2008) Urinary calculus: IVU vs. CT renal stone? A critically appraised topic. Abdom Imaging 33:41–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B (2002) The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 40:280–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jocham D, Miller K (2007) Praxis der Urologie. Thieme, Stuttgart

  31. Tekgül SRH, Gerharz P, Hoebeke P et al (2011) Guidelines on Paediatric Urology. European Association of Urology Guidelines

  32. Radmayr C (2008) Radiation safety and future innovative diagnostic modalities. Adv Urol: 827106

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nicolau C, Bunesch L, Peri L et al (2010) Accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the detection of bladder cancer. Br J Radiol [Epub ahead of print]

  34. Totaro A, Pinto F, Brescia A et al (2010) Imaging in bladder cancer: present role and future perspectives. Urol Int 85:373–380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Heidenreich ABM, Joniau S, Mason M et al (2011) Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology Guidelines

  36. Lavoipierre AM, Snow RM, Frydenberg M et al (1998) Prostatic cancer: role of color Doppler imaging in transrectal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:205–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Leibovici D, Kamat AM, Do KA et al (2005) Transrectal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for detection of rectal wall invasion by prostate cancer. Prostate 62:101–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mueller-Lisse UG, Miller K (2010) Imaging modalities for primary diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Urologe A 49:190–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I et al (2008) Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54:1354–1362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H et al (2002) Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol 167:1648–1652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Konig K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A et al (2005) Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 174:115–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rabinowitz R, Hulbert WC Jr (1997) Late presentation of cryptorchidism: the etiology of testicular re-ascent. J Urol 157:1892–1894

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. McAndrew HF, Pemberton R, Kikiros CS, Gollow I (2002) The incidence and investigation of acute scrotal problems in children. Pediatr Surg Int 18:435–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kalfa N, Veyrac C, Lopez M et al (2007) Multicenter assessment of ultrasound of the spermatic cord in children with acute scrotum. J Urol 177:297–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Donkol RH (2010) Imaging in male-factor obstructive infertility. World J Radiol 2:172–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Moon MH, Kim SH, Cho JY et al (2006) Scrotal US for evaluation of infertile men with azoospermia. Radiology 239:168–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1–3, 68167, Mannheim, Deutschland

    G. Schöppler, J. Heinzelbecker & A.E. Pelzer

  2. Institut für Klinische Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medizinische Fakultät Mannheim der Universität Heidelberg, Mannheim, Deutschland

    H.J. Michaely & D. Dinter

  3. Institut für Klinische Radiologie, Klinikum Großhadern, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland

    D.-A. Clevert

Authors
  1. G. Schöppler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Heinzelbecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H.J. Michaely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Dinter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. D.-A. Clevert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A.E. Pelzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Schöppler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schöppler, G., Heinzelbecker, J., Michaely, H. et al. Stellenwert des Ultraschalls in der Urologie. Urologe 51, 81–98 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2662-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-011-2662-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

search

Navigation