Intravenous urography revisited in the age of ultrasound and computerized tomography: Diagnostic yield in cases of renal colic, suspected pelvic and abdominal malignancies, suspected renal mass, and acute pyelonephritis

The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic yield of intravenous urography (IVU) compared to ultrasound (US) and computerized tomography (CT) in cases of renal colic, suspected pelvic and abdominal malignancies, suspected renal mass: and acute pyelonephritis. We retrospectively analyzed the case charts of 216 consecutive patients. The patients had been referred to the Department of Radiology by different hospital departments and local general practitioners. All had undergone clinical examination, US and IVU, in that order. When deemed necessary, conventional tomography was performed. Patients with renal masses also underwent CT. In cases without renal colic and normal US examination, the subsequent IVU failed to detect any further important pathology. Hydronephrosis was equally well detected using US and IVU, however, the level of obstruction was better determined using delayed X-ray films. In 24% of cases of renal colics the initial US was normal, however, the IVU revealed ureteric obstruction. Repeat US 8-12 h later always showed hydronephrosis. In 6 of 34 solid renal masses, IVU and conventional tomography failed to make the correct diagnosis, but never could the patient be spared a subsequent CT. IVU is only indicated if US shows hydronephrosis. In cases of renal colic, repeat US is necessary to diagnose the possibly developing hydronephrosis. Clinical history, US and a plain abdominal image will suffice to make the diagnosis. Renal masses always require CT. In these cases, IVU is not necessary. There is no indication left for conventional renal tomographies.