Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Nov;25(11):2289-93.
doi: 10.1007/s00467-010-1618-7. Epub 2010 Aug 5.

Voiding urosonography with second-generation contrast agent versus voiding cystourethrography

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Voiding urosonography with second-generation contrast agent versus voiding cystourethrography

Eva Kis et al. Pediatr Nephrol. 2010 Nov.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Pediatr Radiol. 1993;23(6):478-80 - PubMed
    1. Eur J Radiol. 2002 Aug;43(2):122-8 - PubMed
    1. Pediatr Radiol. 2009 Mar;39(3):239-44 - PubMed
    1. Pediatr Radiol. 1985;15(2):105-9 - PubMed
    1. Eur Radiol. 2003 Jul;13(7):1534-7 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources