An observational study of incidence of urological intervention in patients of renal colic with normal and abnormal ultrasound study

Ankit Joshi; Shirish Srivastava

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20180445

Authors

Ankit Joshi Department of Surgery, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat, India
Shirish Srivastava Department of Surgery, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20180445

Keywords:

Renal colic, Ultrasonography, Urolithiasis

Abstract

Background: Renal colic is a common presentation that affects millions people annually. Although ultrasonography has lower sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing urolithiasis compared to CT, it is an alternative imaging modality that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. By this observational study an attempt has been made to know the incidence of urological intervention in suspected renal colic patients with normal USG findings, so as to decreasing the number of CT scans and associated ionizing radiation in patients with suspected renal colic.

Methods: This was an observational study involving adult patients presenting to the Trauma and Emergency Care Department in Shree Krishna Hospital with suspected renal colic over a 12-months period. Renal ultrasonography was performed in suspected renal colic patients, and the results were categorized into three mutually exclusive groups: normal, suggestive of ureterolithiasis, or visualized ureteric stone. Patients were followed up to see if patients received urological intervention.

Results: Of 132 patients enrolled, 16 (12.12%) were classified as normal; none of these patients underwent urologic intervention. 62 (46.92%) USG results were classified as suggestive of ureterolithiasis, and one (1.61%) patient received urologic intervention. A total of 54 (40.91%) USG results were classified as visualized ureteric stone, and 24 (44.45%) patients had urologic intervention. The rate of urologic intervention was significantly lower in those with normal USG results (p <0.001) than in those with abnormal findings.

Conclusions: A normal renal ultrasonography predicts a low likelihood for urologic intervention for adult patients with suspected renal colic.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Prien E, Frondel C. Studies in Urolithiasis-I. The Composition of Urinary Calculi. J Urol. 1947;57(6):949-91.

Nephrolithiasis: Practice Essentials, Background, Anatomy. Emedicine.medscape.com, 2017. Available at: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/437096-overview. Accessed 22 June 2017.

Brenner D, Hall E. Computed Tomography- An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure. New England J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-84.

Ripolles T, Agramunt M, Errando J, Martinez M, Coronel B, Morales M. Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT. A prospective study in 66 patients. European Radiol. 2004;14(1):129-36.

Teichman J. Acute Renal Colic from Ureteral Calculus. New England J Med. 2004;350(7):684-93.

Patlas M, Farkas A, Fisher D, Zaghal I, Hadas-Halpern I. Ultrasoundvs CT for the detection of ureteric stones in patients with renal colic. The Br J Radiol. 2001;74(886):901-4.

Broder J, Bowen J, Lohr J, Babcock A, Yoon J. Cumulative CT Exposures in Emergency Department Patients Evaluated for Suspected Renal Colic. J Emerg Med. 2007;33(2):161-8.

Shokeir A. Renal colic: new concepts related to pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. Current Opinion Urol. 2002;12(4):263-9.

Edmonds M, Yan J, Sedran R, McLeod S, Theakston K. The utility of renal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal colic in emergency department patients. CJEM. 2010;12(03):201-6.

Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Watanabe J, Ogura K. Clinical Characteristics of Ureteral Calculi Detected by Nonenhanced Computerized Tomography After Unclear Results of Plain Radiography and Ultrasonography. J Urol. 2003;170(3):799-802.

Yan J, McLeod S, Edmonds M, Sedran R, Theakston K. Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study. CJEM. 2015;17(01):38-45.