Keywords:
Dilatation, Developmental disease, Cystography / Uretrography, Contrast agent-other, Ultrasound, Urinary Tract / Bladder, Ultrasound physics, Contrast agents
Authors:
M. Skender, I. Jurca, I. Sjekavica; Zagreb/HR
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2018/C-0665
Results
Between March 2017 and September 2017,
CeVUS was performed in 98 consecutive patients (M:F=44:54).
The average patient age was 2 years (range 1 month – 12 years).
The indications and their frequencies are presented in Table 1 .
49 (50%) of the patients (M:F=19:30) had a positive result and 45 (46%) of them (M:F=24:21) had a negative one.
Four of the patients (4%) with negative result didn’t manage to void during the examination so the procedure was considered inadequate.
66 of the patients hadn’t undergone any previous diagnostic procedure for VUR,
the CeVUS being their first diagnostic procedure,
while the other 32 previously had voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG) done.
Among the patients who had previously had VCUG done we noticed that in two patients (6%) the previous VCUG showed complete VUR resolution on the one side,
while the follow-up CeVUS showed persisting VUR which was obviously unperceived at the VCUG.
( Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 )
That is proof as to why continued examination and repeated bladder filling are very important for VUR detection.
The only disadvantage of the procedure was difficulty in visualization of the urethra,
so as the literature advises,
the VCUG should remain the gold standard for urethral anomalies,
and should not be avoided in the case of suspect urethral abnormalities.