Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study

  • Justin W. Yan (a1) (a2), Shelley L. McLeod (a1), Marcia L. Edmonds (a1) (a2), Robert J. Sedran (a1) (a2) and Karl D. Theakston (a1) (a2)...
Abstract
Introduction

Determining which patients with ureterolithiasis are likely to require urologic intervention is a common challenge in the emergency department (ED). The objective was to determine if normal renal sonogram could identify low-risk renal colic patients, who were defined as not requiring urologic intervention within 90 days of their initial ED visit and can be managed conservatively.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study involving adult patients presenting to the EDs of a tertiary care centre with suspected renal colic over a 20-month period. Renal ultrasonography (US) was performed in the diagnostic imaging department by trained ultrasonographers, and the results were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups: normal, suggestive of ureterolithiasis, visualized ureteric stone, or findings unrelated to urolithiasis. Electronic medical records were reviewed to determine if patients received urologic intervention within 90 days of their ED visit.

Results

Of 610 patients enrolled, 341 (55.9%) had US for suspected renal colic. Of those, 105 (30.8%) were classified as normal; none of these patients underwent urologic intervention within 90 days of their ED visit. Ninety (26.4%) US results were classified as suggestive, and nine (10%) patients received urologic intervention. A total of 139 (40.8%) US results were classified as visualized ureteric stone, and 34 (24.5%) patients had urologic intervention. Seven (2.1%) US results were classified as findings unrelated to urolithiasis, and none of these patients required urologic intervention. The rate of urologic intervention was significantly lower in those with normal US results (p<0.001) than in those with abnormal findings.

Conclusion

A normal renal sonogram predicts a low likelihood for urologic intervention within 90 days for adult ED patients with suspected renal colic.

Introduction

II est souvent difficile de discerner, au service des urgences (SU), les patients qui sont susceptibles de subir une intervention rénale parmi ceux qui souffrent d’une urétérolithiase. L’étude visait à déterminer si l’obtention d’un échogramme rénal normal permettait de reconnaître les cas de colique né phré tique à faible risque, définis par l’absence de nécessité d’une intervention rénale dans les 90 jours suivant la première consultation au SU et par la possibilité d’une prise en charge conservatrice.

Méthode

II s’agit d’une étude de cohortes, prospective, menée au SU d’un centre hospitalier de soins tertiaires, sur une période de 20 mois, chez des adultes souffrant vraisemblablement d’une colique néphré tique. Une échographie ré nale (ER) a été effectuée au service d’imagerie diagnostique par des échographistes qualifiés, et les résultats ont été divisés en quatre groupes mutuellement exclusifs: normaux, évocateurs d’une urété rolithiase, révélateurs d’un calcul urétéral (visualisé ), et non liés à une lithiase urinaire. II y eu examen des dossiers médicaux électroniques afin de vérifier si des patients avaient subi une intervention rénale au cours des 90 jours suivant la consultation au SU.

Résultats

Sur 610 patients sé lectionnés, 341 (55.9%) ont subi une ER pour une colique néphrétique présumée. Parmi ceuxci, 105 (30.8%) ont obtenu des résultats normaux, et aucun d’entre eux n’a subi une intervention rénale au cours des 90 jours suivant la consultation au SU; chez 90 (26.4%) patients, l’ER a donné des ré sultats é vocateurs d’une uré té rolithiase, et 9 (10%) d’entre eux ont subi une intervention ré nale; chez 139 (40.8%) patients, l’ER a permis de visualiser un calcul uré té ral, et 34 (24.5%) d’entre eux ont subi une intervention ré nale; enfin, chez 7 (2.1%) patients, les ré sultats obtenus à l’ER n’étaient pas liés à une lithiase urinaire, et aucun d’entre eux n’a subi une intervention ré nale. Le taux d’intervention ré nale é tait significativement plus bas chez les patients ayant obtenu des résultats normaux à l’ER (p<0.001) que chez ceux ayant obtenu des résultats anormaux.

Conclusion

L’obtention d’un échogramme rénal normal permet de prévoir le faible risque d’intervention rénale dans les 90 jours suivant la consultation au SU, chez les adultes souffrant d’une colique néphrétique présumée.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Normal renal sonogram identifies renal colic patients at low risk for urologic intervention: a prospective cohort study
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence to: Dr. Justin Yan, The University of Western Ontario - Emergency Medicine, E1-100 Westminster Tower, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON N6A 5W9; jyan2009@meds.uwo.ca.
References
Hide All
1.Wolf, JS Jr, Schwartz, BF. Nephrolithiasis. Available at: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/437096-overview (accessed July 23, 2012)..
2.Kenney, PJ.. CT evaluation of urinary lithiasis. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:979999, doi:10.1016/S0033-8389(03)00067-8.
3.Tamm, EP, Silverman, PM, Shuman, WP. Evaluation of the patient with flank pain and possible ureteral calculus. Radiology 2003;228:319329, doi:10.1148/radiol.2282011726.
4.Gottlieb, RH, La, TC, Etkurk, EN, et al. CT in detecting urinary tract calculi: influence on patient imaging and clinical outcomes. Radiology 2002;225:441449, doi:10.1148/radiol.2252020101.
5.Kirpalani, A, Khalili, K, Lee, S, et al. Renal colic: comparison of use and outcomes of unenhanced helical CT for emergency investigation in 1998 and 2002. Radiology 2005;236:554558, doi:10.1148/radiol.2362040887.
6.Roberts, JR.. Kidney stone or aortic catastrophe? Emerg Med News 2006;28:3134, doi:10.1097/00132981-200604000-00025.
7.Catalano, O, Nunziata, A, Sandomenico, F, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of unenhanced helical CT and ultrasonography in detecting causes other than ureterolithiasis. Emerg Radiol 2002;9:146154.
8.Miller, OF, Kane, CJ. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Curr Opin Urol 2000;10:123-129, doi:10.1097/00042307-200003000-00013.
9. American College of Radiology. Appropriateness criteria. Available at: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/ AppCriteria/Diagnostic/AcuteOnsetFlankPainSuspicionStone Disease.pdf (accessed May 24, 2013).
10.Brenner, DJ, Hall, EJ. Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;257:2277-2284, doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149.
11.Teichman, JM. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med 2004;350:684-693, doi:10.1056/NEJMcp030813.
11.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;14:129-136, doi:10.1007/s00330-003-1924-6.
13.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;74:901-904.
14.Edmonds, ML, Yan, JW, Sedran, RS, et al. The utility of renal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal colic in emergency department patients. CJEM 2010;12:201-206.
15.Broder, J, Bowen, J, Lohr, J, et al. Cumulative CT exposures in emergency department patients evaluated for suspected renal colic. J Emerg Med 2007;33:161-168, doi:10.1016/ j.jemermed.2006.12.035.
16.Amis, ES Jr, Butler, PF, Applegate, KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:272-284, doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2007.03.002.
17.Berrington de Gonzalez, A, Mahesh, M, Kim, KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:2071-2077, doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440.
18.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, doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000081424.44254.45.
19.Lindqvist, K, Hellstrom, M, Holmberg, G, et al. Immediate versus deferred radiological investigation after acute renal colic: a prospective randomized study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006;40:119-124, doi:10.1080/00365590600688203.
20.Yan, JW, McLeod, SL, Edmonds, ML, et al. Factors affecting choice of imaging investigations for patients with suspected renal colic in the emergency department. CJEM 2012;14 Suppl 1:S31.
21.Sternbach, G. Abdominal ultrasound. Ann Emerg Med 1986; 15:295-299, doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(86)80568-6.
22.Watkins, S, Bowra, J, Sharma, P, et al. Validation of emergency physician ultrasound in diagnosing hydronephrosis in ureteric colic. Emerg Med Australas 2007;19:188-195, doi:10.1111/j.1742-6723.2007.00925.x.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
  • ISSN: -
  • EISSN: 1481-8035
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-of-emergency-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 92 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 281 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th May 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.