Noriega-Negrete I, Guerrero-Avendaño G

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 2-6
PDF size: 400.75 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction. The considerable frequency with which urotomographies are requested at the Hospital General de Mexico Image Service has spurred our interest in identifying clinical certainty and different types of differential diagnosis in the population at our center.
Material and methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of computed tomography studies of abdomen and pelvis in single phase, requested as the result of a clinical diagnosis of urolithiasis in first-time patients received at the imaging service referred from any of the hospital wards, in a period of 6 months (408 studies).
Results. Nephrolithiasis was confirmed in 22.5% of cases. Studies without evidence of pathology accounted for 14.7%. The pathologies encountered most commonly included discal disease (9.8%) and diverticular disease (8.8%).
Discussion and conclusions: Physical examination and adequate anamnesis may help the clinic reduce the frequency of unnecessary studies on patients, lowering the cost and time of medical care, as well as unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation. It is important to know the most common type of pathologies in the population that receives care at this hospital. This study seeks to provide tools to broaden the range of differential diagnoses and emphasize the search for better quality care.

REFERENCES

1. Otero F, Lugo A, Durán A. Las enfermedades renales en el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Rev Asoc Med Int Mex 11;1995:21-29.

2. Manthey DE, Teichman J. Nephrolithiasis. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2001;19(3):633-54.

3. Pearle MS. Prevention of nephrolithiasis. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2001;10(2):203-9.

4. Gambaro G, Favaro S, D’Angelo A. Risk for renal failure in nephrolithiasis. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37(2):233-43.

5. Butler EL, Cox SM, Eberts EG, Cunningham FG. Symptomatic nephrolithiasis complicating pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:753-6.

6. Goldfarb DS, Coe FL. Prevention of recurrent nephrolithiasis. Am Fam Physician 1999;60(8):2269-76.

7. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, Leder RA, Smith RH, Nelson RH, et al. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 1998;160:679-84.

8. Chen MY, Zagoria RJ. Can noncontrast helical computed tomography replace intravenous urography for evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic?. J Emerg Med 1999;17(2):299-303.

9. Perlman ES, Rosenfield AT, Wexler JS, Glickman MG. CT urography in the evaluation of urinary tract disease. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20(4):620-6.

10. Vrtiska TJ, King BF, LeRoy AJ, Hattery RR, McCollough CH, Quam JP. CT urography: analysis of techniques and comparison with IVU (abstr). Radiology 2000;217:225.

11. McCollough CH, Daly TR, King BF Jr, LeRoy AJ. An auxiliary CT tabletop for radiography at the time of CT. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25(6):876-80.

12. McCollough CH, Hsieh J, Vrtiska TJ, King BF, LeRoy AJ, Fox SH. Development of an enhanced CT digital projection radiograph for uroradiologic imaging (abstr). Radiology 2001;218:609.

13. Noroozian M, Cohan R, Caoili E, Cowan N, Ellis J. Multislice CT urography: state of the art. The British Journal of Radiology 2004;77:74-86.