Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare positive cystography techniques at 5%, 10%, and 20%, as well as three different double-contrast protocols for detecting radiolucent uroliths with a diameter of less than 3.0 mm in dogs. Six cadavers were used, one was selected at random to represent the negative control, and the others were submitted to urolith implantation in the bladder by urethral catheter. Three radiology professionals blindly accessed ventrodorsal and -lateral projections of each test. Contrast at 20% showed greater diagnostic sensitivity, but with greater difficulty identifying the number and size of the uroliths. Consequently, double-contrast techniques are better and should be used for diagnostic and therapeutic planning. Sensitivity and specificity tests demonstrated that positive 5% cystography and different concentrations of double contrast obtained better results in terms of sensitivity and specificity. However, due to the presence of a greater amount of artifacts in the 5% cystography, it is suggested that double contrast is used for this purpose, especially with the removal of contrast excess (protocol 2).

Preputial urolith deposition and urate urolith obstruction in a calf

“…This examination could have aided in the diagnosis of nephroliths and provided information on the size and quality of the urinary bladder and its wall structure 29 . Also, contrast radiography was not favoured because artefacts like blood clots in the urinary tract are difficult to interpret and the contrast agent might lead to misinterpretation of urine and urolith analyses 30 . We concluded that there was no ureteral rupture because the animal urinated easily with a normal urine flow following the intervention and no urine collection was evident on the control radiograph.…”