Premium
Potential role of duplex Doppler sonography in acute renal colic
Author(s) -
Roy Catherine,
Tuchmann Christine,
Pfleger Dominique,
Guth Stéphane,
Saussine Christian,
Jacqmin Didier
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
journal of clinical ultrasound
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.272
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1097-0096
pISSN - 0091-2751
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0096(199811/12)26:9<427::aid-jcu2>3.0.co;2-p
Subject(s) - medicine , renal colic , doppler sonography , radiology , doppler effect , duplex (building) , pyelogram , duplex ultrasonography , kidney , nuclear medicine , ultrasonography , pathology , dna , physics , alternative medicine , genetics , astronomy , biology
Purpose We assessed the value of renal duplex Doppler sonography in diagnosing obstruction in patients with acute renal colic. Methods We compared the results of renal duplex Doppler sonography with those of intravenous urography (IVU) in 65 patients presenting with symptoms of renal colic. The Doppler spectral waveforms were used to calculate the resistance index (RI). The difference between the mean RIs (ΔRI) in the 2 kidneys was calculated for each patient. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ΔRI for the diagnosis of obstruction were calculated with several discriminatory thresholds. Results All patients had an obstruction on IVU. When a high ΔRI threshold for obstruction (ΔRI ≥ 0.1) was applied, the sensitivity and specificity of duplex Doppler sonography were 10% and 80%, respectively. When the ΔRI threshold was decreased, the sensitivity increased but the specificity decreased, and both remained quite low. Twelve patients had a lower mean RI in the obstructed kidney than in the normal contralateral kidney. Among 14 patients without pyelocaliceal dilatation, the sensitivity of duplex Doppler sonography was 70% with a ΔRI threshold of 0.03. Conclusions Duplex Doppler sonography is not sensitive enough to diagnose obstruction in patients with acute renal colic. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 26:427–432, 1998.