Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T11:40:25.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The utility of renal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal colic in emergency department patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Marcia L. Edmonds ,
Justin W. Yan ,
Robert J. Sedran ,
Shelley L. McLeod  and
Karl D. Theakston
Marcia L. Edmonds*
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., and the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Justin W. Yan
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., and the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Robert J. Sedran
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., and the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Shelley L. McLeod
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., and the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Karl D. Theakston
Affiliation:
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., and the Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
*
800 Commissioners Rd. E1-102, London ON N6A 5W9; fax 519 667-6769; marcia.edmonds@lhsc.on.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging modality used to detect renal stones. However, there is concern about the lifetime cumulative radiation exposure attributed to CT. Ultrasonography (US) has been used to diagnose urolithiasis, thereby avoiding radiation exposure. The objective of this study was to determine the ability of US to identify renal colic patients with a low risk of requiring urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial emergency department (ED) visit.

Methods:

We completed a retrospective medical record review for all adult patients who underwent ED-ordered renal US for suspected urolithiasis over a 1-year period. Independent, double data extraction was performed for all imaging reports and US results were categorized as “normal,” “suggestive of ureterolithiasis,” “ureteric stone seen” or “disease unrelated to urolithiasis.” Charts were reviewed to determine how many patients underwent subsequent CT and urologic intervention.

Results:

Of the 817 renal US procedures ordered for suspected urolithiasis during the study period, the results of 352 (43.2%) were classified as normal, and only 2 (0.6%) of these patients required urologic intervention. The results of 177 (21.7%) renal US procedures were suggestive of ureterolithiasis. Of these, 12 (6.8%) patients required urologic intervention. Of the 241 (29.5%) patients who had a ureteric stone seen on US, 15 (6.2%) required urologic intervention. The rate of urologic intervention was significantly lower in those with normal results on US (p < 0.001) than in those with abnormal results on US.

Conclusion:

A normal result on renal US predicts a low likelihood for urologic intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected urolithiasis.

Keywords

renal colicurolithiasisurologic interventionultrasonographyemergency department
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , May 2010 , pp. 201 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2010

References

REFERENCES

1.Brown, J. Diagnostic and treatment patterns for renal colic in US emergency departments. Int Urol Nephrol 2006;38:87–92.Google Scholar
2.Tasso, SR, Shields, CP, Rosenberg, CR, et al.Effectiveness of selective use of intravenous pyelography in patients presenting to the emergency department with ureteral colic. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4:780–4.Google Scholar
3.Chen, MYM, Zaporia, RJ, Dyer, RB.Radiologic findings in acute urinary tract obstruction. J Emerg Med 1997;15:339–43.Google Scholar
4.Boyd, R, Gray, AJ. Role of the plain radiograph and urinalysis in acute ureteric colic. J AccidEmerg Med 1996;13:390–1.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Svedström, E, Alanene, A, Nurmi, M. Radiologic diagnosis of renal colic: the role of plain films, excretory urography and sonography. Eur J Radiol 1990;11:180–3.Google Scholar
6.Worster, A, Preyra, I, Weaver, B,et al.The accuracy of non-contrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med 2002;40:280–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Eray, O, Cubuk, MS, Oktay, C, et al.The efficacy of urinalysis, plain films, and spiral CT in ED patients with suspected renal colic. Am J Emerg Med 2003;21:152–4.Google Scholar
8.Greenwell, TJ, Woodhams, S, Denton, ERM, et al.One year’s clinical experience with unenhanced spiral computed tomography for the assessment of acute loin pain suggestive of renal colic. BJU Int 2000;85:632–6.Google Scholar
9.Chen, MYM, Zagoria, RJ. Can noncontrast helical computed tomography replace intravenous urography for evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic? J Emerg Med 1999;17:299–303.Google Scholar
10.Kenney, PJ. CT evaluation of urinary lithiasis. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:979–99.Google Scholar
11.Tamm, EP, Silverman, PM, Shuman, WP. Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus. Radiology 2003;228:319–29.Google Scholar
12.Gottlieb, RH, La, TC, Etkurk, EN, et al.CT in detecting urinary tract calculi: influence on patient imaging and clinical outcomes. Radiology 2002;225:441–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Kirpalani, A, Khalili, K, Lee, S, et al.Renal colic: comparison of use and outcomes of unenhancedhelical CT for emergency investigation in 1998 and 2002. Radiology 2005;236:554–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Ha, M, MacDonald, RD. Impact of CT scan in patients with first episode of suspected nephrolithiasis. J Emerg Med 2004;27:225–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Brenner, DJ, Hall, EJ. Computed tomography — an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Mettler, FA, Wiest, PW, Locken, JA, et al.CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot 2000;20:353–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Broder, J, Bowen, J, Lohr, J, et al.Cumulative CT exposures in emergency department patients evaluated for suspected renal colic. J Emerg Med 2007;33:161–8.Google Scholar
18.Lee, CI, Haims, AH, Monico, EP, et al.Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiology 2004;231:393–8.Google Scholar
19.Geavlete, P, Georgescu, D, Cauni, V, et al.Value of duplex Doppler ultrasonography in renal colic. Eur Urol 2002;41:71–8.Google Scholar
20.Teichman, JM. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 2004;350:684–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Ripolles, 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;14:129–36.Google Scholar
22.Watkins, S, Bowra, J, Sharma, P,et al.Validation of emergency physician ultrasound in diagnosing hydronephrosis in ureteric colic. Emerg Med Australas 2007;19:188–95.Google Scholar
23.Rosen, CL, Brown, DFM, Sagarin, MJ, et al.Ultrasonography by emergency physicians in patients with suspected ureteral colic. J Emerg Med 1998;16:865–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Patlas, M, Farkas, A, Fisher, D,et al.Ultrasound vs CT for the detection of ureteric stones in patients with renal colic. Br J Radiol 2001;74:901–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Noble, VE, Brown, DFM. Renal ultrasound. Emerg MedClin North Am 2004;22:641–59.Google Scholar
26.Stiell, IG, McKnight, RD, Greenberg, GH, et al.Interobserver agreement in the examination of acute ankle injury patients. Am J Emerg Med 1992;10:14–7.Google Scholar
27.Catalano, O, Nanziata, A, Altei, F, et al.Suspected ureteral colic: primary helical CT versus selective helical CT after unenhanced radiography and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:379–87.Google Scholar
28.Kobayashi, T, Nishizawa, K, Watanabe, J, et al.Clinical characteristics of ureteral calculi detected by nonenhanced computerized tomography after unclear results of plain radiography and ultrasonography. J Urol 2003;170:799–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Lindqvist, K, Hellstrom, M, Holmberg, G, et al.Immediate versus deferred radiological investigation after actue renal colic: a prospective randomized study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006;40:119–24.Google Scholar
30.Katz, SI, Saluja, S, Brink, JA, et al.Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJRA Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1120–4.Google Scholar
31.Gilbert, EH, Lowenstein, S, Koziol-McLain, J, et al.Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: What are the methods? Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:305–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Dreyer, JF, Edmonds, ML, McLeod, SL. Diagnostic imaging for renal colic in Ontario emergency departments [abstract 196]. CJEM 2007;9:220.Google Scholar