Objectives: The main purpose of the study was to identify and quantify clinical variables which predisposed incorrect diagnosis based on ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) findings in the patients with suppurative renal infections. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of radiological records of patients at 3 tertiary Serbian clinics of urology from 1999 to January 2006 was conducted. The series consisted of 49 women and 26 men, mean age = 56.7 years, ranging from 21 to 78. All patients underwent US examinations. Forty-one patients had undergone CT examinations, on 42 renal units (1 bilateral perirenal infection). The patients were categorized into 4 groups according to the type of suppurative infection: (a) unilocular renal or perirenal abscesses; (b) with pyonephrosis only; (c) with multiple renal or pyonephrosis infections along with extension on perirenal space, and (d) emphysematous infections. Results: Incorrect diagnosis based on US record only depended on the suppurative entity. In the presence of pyonephrosis only, the risk of incorrect diagnosis was reduced for 4 times [odds ratio (OR) = 0.25], and in presence of emphysematous infections the risk increased 19.5 times (OR = 19.49). Perinephric abscesses which were not seen on US were those associated with pyonephrosis, abscesses smaller than 6 cm and gas-forming abscesses. The diagnosis of abscesses considerably varied in the cases of unilocular purulent collections compared to complex purulent collections (χ2 = 8.177, p = 0.004). Overall, the risk for incorrect diagnosis is about 14 times higher using US only (OR = 14.5), while CT reduced the risk of it for about 37 times (OR = 0.027). Conclusions: CT was much more reliable than US to correctly identify the pathological entity of renal suppuration. Guiding treatment on US findings only seems hazardous as omission of some pathological processes is very likely.

This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.