Voiding urosonography with ultrasound contrast agents for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in children: I. Procedure

Voiding urosonography (VUS) encompasses examination of the urinary tract with intravesical administration of US contrast agent (UCA) for diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR). The real breakthrough for US examination of VUR came with the availability of stabilized UCAs in the mid-1990s. This article presents a comprehensive review of various procedural aspects of VUS. Different US modalities are available for detecting the echogenic microbubbles: fundamental mode, colour Doppler US, harmonic imaging and dedicated contrast imaging with multiple display options. The reflux is graded (1 to 5) in a similar manner to the system used in voiding cystourethrography (VCUG). The most commonly used UCA for VUS, Levovist, is galactose-based and contains air-filled microbubbles. The recommended concentration is 300 mg/ml at a dose of 5–10%, or less than 5%, of the bladder filling volume when using fundamental or harmonic imaging modes, respectively. There are preliminary reports of VUS using a second-generation UCA, SonoVue. Here the UCA volume is less than 1% of the bladder filling volume. There is no specific contraindication to intravesical administration of UCA. The safety profile of intravesical Levovist is very high with no reports of side effects over a decade of use in VUS

Comparison of direct radionuclide cystography and voiding direct cystography in the detection of vesicoureteral reflux

PubMedID: 14651353Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the results of direct radionuclide cystography (DRNC) and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) in a group of children with a high suspicion of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). Methods: For this purpose, 25 children were studied with both VCUG and DRNC. Among 50 ureter units able to be compared 39 ureter units did not show any VUR on either study. Eleven ureter units (10 children) had VUR either on one study or on both (VCUG and DRNC). In the children who had VUR on either study, a dimercaptosuccinic acid scintigraphy (DMSA) was performed to determine their cortical function. Results: We identified the following four patterns: 1) Five ureter units (five children) read positive on DRNC who were negative on VCUG and four of these children had positive findings on DMSA; 2) Four ureter units (four children) read positive on VCUG who were negative on DRNC, and two of them had positive findings on DMSA; 3) Two ureters (one child) read positive in both studies and also had abnormal DMSA findings; 4) Thirty-nine ureter units read as negative on both studies. Conclusion: Although the results of these two methods did not show a significant difference, DRNC offers a high sensitivity in the younger age group whereas VCUG seems to be more sensitive in the older age group. DRNC also offers continuous recording during the study, ease of assessment and lower radiation dose to the gonads, which makes it a preferable method for the initial diagnosis and follow-up of VUR