Multi-detector row CT urography of normal urinary collecting system: Furosemide versus saline as adjunct to contrast medium

Radiology

Volumn 240, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 749-755

  Silverman, Stuart G ^a   Akbar, Syed A ^a   Mortele, Koenraad J ^a   Tuncali, Kemal ^a   Bhagwat, Jui G ^a   Seifter, Julian L ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; FUROSEMIDE; IOPROMIDE; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; KIDNEY COLLECTING TUBULE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL RECORD; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STUDENT T TEST; URETER; URINARY EXCRETION; UROGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; FUROSEMIDE; HUMANS; KIDNEY TUBULES, COLLECTING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SODIUM CHLORIDE; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UROGRAPHY;

EID: 33747596216     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2403050233     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Choe KA, Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1993;194:789-794.
2. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:97-101.
3. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N, et al. Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172: 1491-1494.
4. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Ernst RD, Goldman SM, Ravel H, Fishman EK. Renal inflammatory disease: the current role of CT. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1997;38:369-415.
5. Silverman SG, Lee BY, Seltzer SE, et al. Small (< or = 3 cm) renal masses: con-elation of spiral CT features and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:597-605.
6. Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F, Altziebler S, et al. Mutiphasic helical CT of the kidney: increased conspicuity for detection and characterisation of small (< 3 cm) renal masses. Radiology 1997;202:211-217.
7. Herschorn S, Radomski SB, Shoskes DA, Mahoney J, Hirshberg E, Klotz L. Evaluation and treatment of blunt renal trauma. J Urol 1991;146:274-276.
8. Goldstein AS, Sclafani SJ, Kepferstein NH, et al. The diagnostic superiority of computerized tomography. J Trauma 1985;25:938-946.
9. Freed KS, Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, et al. Non-enhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: prospective comparison. Radiology 2000;217:792-797.
10. Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, et al. Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography, US, and CT. Radiology 1988;169:363-365.
11. McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD, Silverman SG. Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 2002;225:783-790.
12. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology 2002;222:353-360.
13. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Staatz G, Tacke J, Gunther RW. MR urography today. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:191-209.
14. Maisey M. Radionuclide renography: a review. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2003; 12:649-652.
15. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Wildberger JE, Borders H, Schmitz-Rode T, Günter RW. Multi-slice CT urography after diuretic injection: initial results. Rofo 2001;173:176-180.
16. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, Silverman SG. Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology 2004;232:126-132.
17. Parikh C, Kumar S, Berl T. Disorders of water metabolism. In: Johnson RJ, Feehally J, eds. Comprehensive clinical nephrology, New York, NY: Mosby, 2003; 87-108.
18. Rose B. Clinical physiology of acid-base and electrolyte disorders. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1989; 211-244.
19. Chatoth DK, Andreoli TE. Disorders of extracellular volume. In: Johnson RJ, Feehally J, eds. Comprehensive clinical nephrology. New York, NY: Mosby, 2003; 71-85.
20. Morris TW, Fischer HW. The pharmacology of intravascular radiocontrast media. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1986;26:143-160.
21. Upsdell SM, Testa HJ, Lawson RS, et al. Diuretic induced urinary flow rate at varying clearances and their relevance to the performance and interpretation of diuresis renography. Br J Urol 1988;61:14-18.
22. English PJ, Testa HJ, Lawson RS, et al. Modified method of diuresis renography for assesment of equivocal pelviureteric junction obstruction. Br J Urol 1987;59:10-14.
23. Britton KE, Nawaz MK, Whitfield HN, et al. Obstructive uropathy: comparision between parenchymal transit time index and furosemide diuresis. Br J Urol 1987;59:127-132.
24. Heneghan JP, Kim DH, Leder RA, et al. Compression CT urography: a comparison with IVU in the opacification of the collecting system and ureters. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:343-347.
25. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Effectiveness of abdominal compression during renal helical CT. Acad Radiol 2001;8: 1100-1106.
26. Caoili EM, Inampudi P, Cohan RH, Ellis JH. Optimization of multi-detector row CT urography: effect of compression, saline, administration, and prolongation of acquisition delay. Radiology 2005;235:116-123.
27. Levatter R. Compression during CT urography [letter]. Radiology 2002;225:309-310.
28. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, et al. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619-628.
29. Chow LC, Sommer FG. Multidetector CT urography with abdominal compression and three-dimensional reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:849-855.