Exploraciones no recomendadasla urografia intravenosa en el estudio del cólico nefrítico.

  1. Franco-López, Ángeles
  2. Alonso-Burgos, Alberto
Journal:
Journal of Negative and No Positive Results: JONNPR

ISSN: 2529-850X

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 2

Issue: 3

Pages: 107-114

Type: Article

DOI: 10.19230/JONNPR.1272 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Journal of Negative and No Positive Results: JONNPR

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Great changes have occurred in the specialty of radiology during the last years. One of the consequences is that some explorations considered as “gold standard” have been substituted by the axial techniques (computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance). Many clinicians are reluctant to adapt to these changes. It is the task of radiologists to give advice about the advantages of new procedures.Intravenous urography is no longer recommended in renal colic, being substituted by ultrasound and CT, procedures that must be used appropriately, depending on the patients’ age and the clinical context.

Bibliographic References

  • Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology 2009;250:309-23.
  • Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, Essenmacher KR, Verga M, Glickman MG, et al. Acute flank pain: Comparison of noncontrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995;194:789–94.
  • Ripollés T, Agramunt M, Errando J et al. Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT. A prospective study in 66 patients. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(1):129-136.
  • Nicolau C, Claudon M, Derchi LE, Adam EJ , Nielsen MB, Mostbeck G et al. Imaging patients with renal colic—consider ultrasound first. Insights Imaging 2015; 6:441–447
  • Jindal G, Ramchandani P. Acute flank pain secondary to urolithiasis: Radiologic evaluation and alternate diagnoses. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:395–410.
  • Rodríguez Alonso A, Pérez García D, Ojea Calvo A, Rodríguez Iglesias B, Alonso Rodrigo A, Barros J.M. Value of non-contrast helical computerized tomography in nephrotic colic assessment. Actas Urol Esp1999; 23: 772-777
  • Ferrandino M, Pierre S, Simmons W, Paulson E.K, Albala D.M, Preminger GM. Dual-energy computed tomography with advanced postimage acquisition data processing: Improved determination of urinary stone composition. J Endourol 2009; 181 (suppl 4):827
  • Goldman SM, Sandler CM. Genitourinary imaging: The past 40 years. Radiology 2000; 215: 313-324
  • Fernández-Mena J, Valle-Diaz de la Guardia F. Caracterización por la imagen de las masas renales. Atlas por la imagen. Actas Urol Esp. 2009 17.
  • Vijay M. Rao MD; Levin DC. The overuse of diagnostic imaging and the choosing wisely initiative. Ann Intern Med 2012;157(8):574-576. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-8-201210160-00535
  • Documentos SERAM: Recomendaciones de “no hacer”. Ed. Comisión de Asuntos Profesionales de la SERAM.2014. ISBN 978-84-606-6667-7
  • Franco A, Tomas M, Alonso-Burgos A. Intravenous urography is dead. Long live computerized tomography! Actas Urol Esp 2010;34( 9) :764–774
  • Stephen Amis E, Jr. Epitaph for the Urogram. Radiology 1999; 213(3):639-640
Data source: Dialnet