Advertisement

Can Intravenous Urography be Replaced by Sonography?

  • Ernesto Tomei
  • Hedvig Hricak
Part of the International Yearbooks of Nephrology book series (IYNE, volume 2)

Abstract

For the last four decades, intravenous urography (IVU) has been considered indispensable in evaluation of the urinary tract. Since the introduction of cross-sectional imaging modalities (diagnostic ultrasound [US] computed tomography [CT] and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), however, the role of IVU has changed (1), and the number of studies performed around the country is decreasing. Technical advances in radiology have improved diagnostic evaluation, facilitated interventional approaches for diagnosis and treatment, and refined the assessment of therapeutic results. In order to avoid duplication and efficiently achieve the best outcome with this vast array of imaging options, it is necessary to understand the advantages and limitations of each (2). This review provides a comparison of the use of IVU and US in nephrology, and discusses the optimal diagnostic choice in various clinical situations.

Keywords

Acute Rejection Renovascular Hypertension Intravenous Urography Urinary Tract Obstruction Excretory Urography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jacobson HG, Edeiken J: The changing indications for excretory urography. JAMA, 254(3): 403–405, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aslaksen A, Gothlin JH: Ultrasonography versus excretory urography: Value in urological disease. Europ J Radiol, 8: 179–180, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hattery R, Williamson B Jr, Hartman GW, LeRoy AJ, Witten DM: Intravenous urographie technique. Radiology, 167: 593–599, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartman GW, Hattery RR, Witten DM, Williamson B Jr: Mortality during excretory urography: Mayo Clinic experience. Am J Radiol, 139: 919–922, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobsson BF, Jorulf H, Kalantar MS, Narasimham DL: Nonionic versus ionic contrast media in intravenous urography: Clinical trial in 1,000 consecutive patients. Radiology, 167: 601–605, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hricak H: Renal ultrasound, in Sarti DA (ed): Diagnostic Ultrasound. Text and Cases 2nd ed. Chicago, Year Book Medical Publishers, 350–364, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosenfield AT, Siegel NJ: Renal parenchymal disease: Histopathologic-sonographic correlation. Am J Radiol, 137: 793–798, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee JKT, Baron RL, Melson GL, et al: Can real-time ultrasonography replace static B-scanning in the diagnosis of renal obstruction? Radiology, 139: 161–165, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cochlin D LL, Wake A, Salaman JR, Griffin PJA: Ultrasound changes in the transplant kidney. Clin Radiol, 39: 373–376, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. **10.
    Wineman R: End stage renal disease: Dialysis & Transplant, 7:1034–1037, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hricak H, Cruz C, Romanski R, Uniewski MH, Levin NW, Madrazo BL, Sandler MA, Eyler WR: Renal parenchymal disease: Sonographie-histologic correlation. Radiology, 144: 141–147, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaufman JJ: Renovascular hypertension: The UCLA experience. J Urol, 121: 139–144, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thornbury JR, Stanley JC, Fryback DG: Hypertensive urogram: A non-discriminatory test for renovascular hypertension. Am J Radiol, 138: 43–49, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tucker RM, Labarthe DR: Frequency of surgical treatment for hypertension in adults at the Mayo Clinic for 1973 through 1975. May Clin Proc, 52: 549–555, 1977.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wicks JD, Thornbury JR: Acute renal infections in adults. Rad Clin North Am, 17: 245, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fowler JE Jr, Pulaski ET: Excretory urography, cystography, and cystoscopy in the evaluation of women with urinary tract infection: A prospective study. N Eng J Med, 304: 462–465,1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fair WR, McClennan BL, Jost RG: Are excretory urograms necessary in evaluating women with urinary tract infections? J Urol, 121: 313–315, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jagjivan B, Moore DJ, Naik DR: Intravenous urography in the investigation of the urinary tract. Br J Surg, 75(3): 246–248, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Middleton WD, Dodds WJ, Lawson TL, Foley WD: Renal calculi: Sensitivity for detection with US. Radiology, 167: 239–244, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pollack HM, Bamier MP, Arges PH, James P, Mulhern CB, Gleman BG: The accuracy of grey-scale renal ultrasonography in differentiating cystic neoplasm from benign cysts. Radiology, 143(3): 741–745, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, Bookbinder MJ, Glickman MG, Richter J, Hammers L, Taylor C, Rosenfield AT: Detection of renal masses: Sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography, US, and CT. Radiology, 169: 363–365, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller DL, Chang R, Wells WT, Dowjat BA, Malinosky RM, Doppman JL: Intravascular contrast media: Effect of dose on renal function. Radiology, 167: 607–611, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hricak H, Cruz C, Eyler WR, et al: Acute post-transplantation renal failure: Differential diagnosis by ultrasound. Radiology, 139: 441–449, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hricak H, Cruz C, Eyler WR, Madrazo BL, Sandler MA: Post-transplant renal failure: Differential diagnosis by ultrasound-experimental and clinical obstructions. Med Ultrasound, 6: 1, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Genkins SM, Sanfilippo FP, Carrol BA: Duplex Doppler sonography of renal transplant. Am J Radio, 152: 535–539, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ernesto Tomei
    • 1
  • Hedvig Hricak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Rome, “La Sapienza”, Italy and University of California School of MedicineSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations