Management of urocystoliths by voiding urohydropropulsion

Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs

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).

Uroendoscopy. Evaluation of the lower urinary tract

Recent advances in uroendoscopy have allowed diagnostic evaluation of the lower urinary tract in most of our canine and feline patients. By providing a magnified view of the luminal surfaces of the lower urinary tract, uroendoscopy provides useful diagnostic information that is not readily available even by more invasive techniques.