dc.contributor.author |
Kis, Éva |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Nyitrai, Anna |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Várkonyi, Ildikó |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Máttyus, István |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Cseprekál, Orsolya |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Reusz, György |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Szabó, Attila |
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2016-08-22T06:17:14Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2016-08-22T06:17:14Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2010 |
|
dc.identifier |
77957256717 |
|
dc.identifier.citation |
pagination=2289-2293;
journalVolume=25;
journalIssueNumber=11;
journalTitle=PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY; |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://repo.lib.semmelweis.hu//handle/123456789/3647 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
doi:10.1007/s00467-010-1618-7 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (VUS) is becoming more widely used for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of VUS using a second-generation ultrasound (US) contrast agent and compare it with standard fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). A total of 183 children with 366 kidney-ureter units (KUUs) underwent VUS and VCUG in the same session with the same catheterization. VUS was performed after intravesical administration of 1 ml of a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent (UCA; SonoVue, Bracco, Italy). VUR was detected in 140 out of 366 cases (38%); in 89 (24.3%) by both methods, in 37 (10.1%) by VUS only, and in 14 (3.8%) by VCUG only. Although there was considerable agreement in the diagnosis of VUR by VUS and VCUG (κ=0.68, standard error [κ]=0.04), the difference in the detection rate of reflux between VUS and VCUG was significant (p<0.00001). The grade of VUR detected with VUS showed moderate agreement with grading by VCUG. Our findings suggest that contrast-enhanced harmonic VUS using a second-generation contrast agent is superior to VCUG in the detection and grading of VUR, and it should be the method of choice for this clinical indication. © 2010 IPNA. |
|
dc.relation.ispartof |
urn:issn:0931-041X |
|
dc.title |
Voiding urosonography with second-generation contrast agent versus voiding cystourethrography |
|
dc.type |
Journal Article |
|
dc.date.updated |
2016-08-19T09:26:12Z |
|
dc.language.rfc3066 |
en |
|
dc.identifier.mtmt |
1522221 |
|
dc.identifier.wos |
000281725200010 |
|
dc.identifier.pubmed |
20686902 |
|
dc.contributor.department |
SE/AOK/K/I. Sz. Gyermekgyógyászati Klinika |
|
dc.contributor.institution |
Semmelweis Egyetem |
|