Ultrasound in urological emergency: results of self audit and implications for training

Focused renal sonography performed and interpreted by internal medicine residents

OBJECTIVES

Intensivist-performed focused sonography, including renal sonography, is becoming accepted practice. Whether internal medicine residents can be trained to accurately rule out renal obstruction and identify sonographic findings of chronic kidney disease is unknown. The purpose of this study was to test the ability of residents to evaluate for this specific constellation of findings.

METHODS

Internal medicine residents were trained in a 5-hour module on focused renal sonography evaluating renal length, echogenicity, hydronephrosis, and cysts on a convenience sample of medical ward, intermediate care, and medical intensive care unit patients. All patients underwent comprehensive sonography within 24 hours. The primary outcome was represented by the Fleiss κ statistic, which indicated the degree of interobserver agreement between residents and radiologists. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated using the comprehensive radiologist-read examination as the reference.

RESULTS

Seventeen internal medicine residents imaged 125 kidneys on 66 patients. The average number of studies performed was 7.3 (SD, 6.6). Residents demonstrated excellent agreement with radiologists for hydronephrosis (κ = 0.73; P < .001; SE, 0.15; sensitivity, 94%; specificity, 93%), moderate agreement for echogenic kidneys (κ = 0.43; P < .001; SE, 0.13; sensitivity, 40%; specificity, 98%), and substantial agreement for renal cysts (κ = 0.61; P < .001; SE, 0.12; sensitivity, 60%; specificity, 96%). Residents showed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 88% for identification of atrophic kidneys, defined as length less than 8 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

After a 5-hour training course, medical residents accurately identified hydronephrosis and key sonographic findings of chronic kidney disease in a cohort of medical patients. Screening for hydronephrosis and renal atrophy can be performed by medical residents after adequate training.

Is the Pocket Ultrasound the “Phonendoscope” of the Urologist?

The objective was to evaluate the utility of the “pocket ultrasound” in making clinical decisions in urologic emergencies. From May to September 2011, 105 patients were assessed for urologic emergencies: acute flank pain, macroscopic hematuria, urinary retention, and lower urinary tract symptoms. All patients underwent an ultrasonographic examination whereby the pocket ultrasound was used to evaluate the kidneys and bladder, followed by another appropriate diagnostic test to verify the suggested diagnosis. Urinary retention was diagnosed in 10 patients. Of 48 subjects with hematuria, 34 had an immediate diagnosis: there were 18 cases of a bladder tumor, 13 cases of urolithiasis, and 2 cases of renal cell carcinoma; one ureteral stent was detected. Of 30 patients referred with lower urinary tract symptoms, 14 showed a high post micturition residual and 2 were seen to have bladder diverticula. Of 17 patients with acute flank pain, 1 had a kidney abscess, 5 had hydronephrosis, and 11 had urolithiasis. Ultrasonography provided a conclusive diagnosis in 67.6% of cases. Point-of-care pocket ultrasound allows a rapid diagnosis for treatment or triage of patients for appropriate referral to other diagnostic methods.

Urologist-operated ultrasound and its use in urological outpatient clinics

INTRODUCTION

Ultrasonograghy plays an important role in the evaluation of urinary tract disorders in cases of medical or surgical renal disorders, because of its lower cost, availability, and lack of ionizing radiation and because with it there is no need for contrast material injection or ingestion. It needs no intervention or preparation and specifically can differentiate between the multiple causes of flank pain. Urologist-operated sonography is a quick, cost-effective, and time-saving modality for both the physician and patient for obtaining first or final diagnosis. Based on its results, patients can be selected for appropriate management and further assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The efficacy of ultrasound examination by a trained urologist in the differentiation of urological emergencies admitted in a district private clinic was studied. Between April 2008 and April 2010, a total of 724 patients (1448 renal units) had renal ultrasound performed by a trained urologist on acute admission. The sonographic findings were compared with subsequent definitive radiological investigations performed as needed, such as KUB (kidney, ureter, bladder) or IVP (intravenous pyelogram). Patient satisfaction and permission for ultrasonography were evaluated by oral consent. Loin pain was the presenting symptom in 45% of the patients (n = 326 cases).

RESULTS

Diagnosis was achieved in 96% of patients. Further evaluations were requested as needed in suspicious cases. If any hydronephrosis was detected and patients' history and/or complaints were suggestive of renal or ureteral stones, an outpatient KUB was requested. For more complex situations, IVP was the next option. Abnormal findings were recorded in 184 cases (25.5%). Mild to moderate unilateral hydronephrosis with or without hydronephrosis was the most common finding observed sonographically. The sensitivity of our ultrasonography evaluation was 99.7%.

CONCLUSION

Office urologist-operated sonograghy may supplement the information available through routine history, physical examination, and laboratory studies. Our study shows that urological trainees can use ultrasound with high levels of accuracy, thereby improving patient management with a high level of patient satisfaction.

Bedside ultrasound: a useful tool for the on-call urologist?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy and benefit of urgent bedside ultrasound scanning in urological emergencies by urology trainees.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 111 patients (86 acute flank pain, 15 renal failure, 10 haematuria) referred as urological emergencies, were scanned for urinary tract abnormalities at the bedside, by a trainee urologist, over 18 months. The ultrasound findings were compared with the results of imaging performed by a consultant radiologist and its influence on clinical management analysed.

RESULTS

Bedside ultrasound proved life saving in 5 patients (2 pyonephrosis, 2 leaking aneurysms, one bilateral ureteric injury). It significantly influenced management in 11 patients, excluded obstruction in the presence of infection.in 13 patients, helped in early diagnosis in 32 patients and ruled out gross urological pathology in 28 patients. It was misleading in 22 patients, mainly with ureteric colic (where the timing of the test can affect the findings), though the outcome was not adversely affected in any. Bedside ultrasound was reasonably accurate (sensitivity 81% and specificity 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

Bedside ultrasound is a useful tool to help the decision-making in urological emergencies and reasonably accurate in hands of a trainee urologist. It is especially helpful for excluding obstruction in presence of infection or renal failure. However it has inherent limitations in assessing acute ureteric colic.