Mp17-19 parental Perceptions on Contrast Enhanced Voiding Ultrasonography vs Voiding Cystourethrography

Hutchison, Dylan; Corbett, Sean T.; Leroy, Susie; Morgan, Kathryn Pauly; Daugherty, Reza; Prillaman, Grace; Kern, Nora G.

doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000002550.19

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a different study, we surveyed our cohort of patients who underwent both ceVUS and fluoro UDS and found that the majority of parents found ceVUS UDS to be more comfortable. Many parents cited ceVUS being less intimidating, less claustrophobic, and not having the “big machine” over their children 20 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel use of contrast enhanced ultrasonography with urodynamics in children: A comparison study to fluoroscopy

Kennady,

Hutchison,

Corbett

et al. 2024

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionVideo urodynamics (UDS) has classically been performed using fluoroscopy (fluoro). Contrast enhanced voiding ultrasonography (ceVUS) has rarely been reported for use with UDS. This is the first study to compare the imaging characteristics of ceVUS versus fluoro UDS.MethodsChildren were enrolled for ceVUS UDS who previously underwent fluoro UDS. Demographics, imaging data for ceVUS and fluoro UDS, time between studies, and clinical data between studies were recorded. Changes in clinical status included implantation/cessation of catheterization or anticholinergic medications, leakage between, urinary tract infections, hydronephrosis and neurologic changes. Comparison testing was performed using McNemar's Chi‐Squared and Wilcoxon matched‐pairs signed rank test.ResultsSeventy‐five children were recruited. Median time between studies was 1.3 years (IQR 0.9−2.9). There were no differences for bladder shape (p = 0.59), vesicoureteral reflux (p = 0.10), bladder neck (p = 0.59) or urethra (p = 1.0) between studies. In 5 cases, the bladder neck could not be visualized adequately due to layering of the microbubble contrast against urine. Benefits to ceVUS included ability to visualize the exact moment the bladder neck opened. Following exclusion of patients with clinical changes that might affect imaging findings, an analysis of 28 patients demonstrated no differences between the two studies.ConclusionsCeVUS can be used adequately in conjunction with UDS. Limitations to ceVUS include more granular imaging for bladder shape versus fluoro and inability to visualize bladder neck if residual urine is in the bladder, mitigated by bladder emptying. Benefits include ability to visualize the dynamic activity of the bladder neck due to constant imaging with ceVUS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel use of contrast enhanced ultrasonography with urodynamics in children: A comparison study to fluoroscopy

Kennady,

Hutchison,

Corbett

et al. 2024

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further efforts to create evidence-based guidelines on UDS use in KT patients are required. Finally, in regard to technique, contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) is emerging as a comparable, radiation-sparing, and more comfortable alternative to fluoroscopic UDS in the pediatric population [74][75][76]. Future studies will be required to determine its efficacy in evaluating transplant patients.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urodynamics in the Transplant Population

Lee,

Van Kuiken

2024

Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Urodynamic testing (UDS) is a valuable tool for understanding the safety of the lower urinary tract (LUT). The goal of this review is to provide evidence-based indications for use of UDS in both the pre-and post-kidney transplant (KT) settings. Recent Findings Pre-transplant bladder cycling with UDS for anuric or oliguric patients is no longer recommended. Instead, UDS aids in identifying LUT anomalies that may require optimization prior to transplant, especially in patients with known urologic etiologies of end-stage renal disease (ERSD). In pre-KT patients with recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) or prior urologic/pelvic interventions, UDS should be used judiciously when the etiology of LUT dysfunction is unclear. In the post-transplant setting, urologists are often consulted for LUT symptoms (LUTS), hydronephrosis, urinary retention, declining renal function, and most commonly, recurrent UTI. Again, UDS should not be routinely performed first line, but as an adjunct to distinguish similarly presenting LUT etiologies such as bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and bladder dysfunction. Summary UDS remains the gold standard for characterizing the LUT, and when utilized appropriately, can identify factors promoting graft and patient survival after KT.

show abstract

Mp17-19 parental Perceptions on Contrast Enhanced Voiding Ultrasonography vs Voiding Cystourethrography

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Novel use of contrast enhanced ultrasonography with urodynamics in children: A comparison study to fluoroscopy

Novel use of contrast enhanced ultrasonography with urodynamics in children: A comparison study to fluoroscopy

Urodynamics in the Transplant Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About