1999
DOI: 10.1007/s002470050687
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Shortcomings of diuresis scintigraphy in evaluating urinary obstruction: comparison with pressure flow studies

Abstract: In patients with risk factors, type II response was sometimes inaccurate, and urodynamic evaluation showed absence of obstruction and led to conservative management. Type IIIb response should be considered equivocal rather than partially obstructive, and pressure flow studies could be considered in such patients.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding has been reported previously in an anecdotal manner [29]. The difference between the post-surgical population and the control population was found to be statistically significant in this regard.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…This finding has been reported previously in an anecdotal manner [29]. The difference between the post-surgical population and the control population was found to be statistically significant in this regard.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Wolf et al [6] showed in 1996 that in adults, urography and diuretic scintigraphy are sufficient in the standard diagnostic work up for urinary tract obstruction; the APM is again mentioned to be ‘additional’. A study similar to the one undertaken by Whitaker in 1984 was conducted in 1999 in 34 children by Dacher et al [7]. This study demonstrated that pressure-flow tests can be considered in children with equivocal outcomes of their (99 m)-Tc-DTPA furosemide diuresis renography.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Traditionally, antegrade pressure measurements (APMs) of the renal pelvis and the upper ureter are recorded by percutaneous access to the kidney or by the perfusion pressureow test (Whitaker test) [3][4][5], which risk invasive renal bleeding and urinary tract infection. Other methods, such as radionuclide renogram, Doppler vessel resistance and intravenous urography [6][7][8][9], lack sensitivity and speci city. A quantitative, non-invasive and e ective method is needed.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%