Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4 Suppl):1668-71. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.006. Epub 2011 Aug 19.

Voiding cystourethrogram--are our protocols the same?

Author information

1
Department of Urology and Radiological Sciences, College of Medicine, FGR, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104, USA. Blake-Palmer@ouhsc.edu

Abstract

PURPOSE:

Voiding cystourethrogram is the gold standard for evaluating and diagnosing vesicoureteral reflux. Reflux detection can potentially be affected by many parameters during voiding cystourethrogram.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A 29-item survey was sent via e-mail through SurveyMonkey® to the chairperson of pediatric radiology at 65 national pediatric hospitals. This survey included questions on institutional protocols for performing voiding cystourethrogram.

RESULTS:

Responses were received from 41 institutions from across North America, including 17 of 19 Randomized Intervention for Children with Vesicoureteral Reflux study sites. Many aspects of the reports of voiding cystourethrogram protocols were similar with 90% or greater agreement in allowing parents in the room, contrast infusion by gravity, catheter or feeding tube use without balloons, no contrast dilution and voiding without a catheter in place. The height at which contrast medium was raised for infusion was 40, 60, 80, 100 and greater than 100 cm at 2.4%, 17.1%, 17.1%, 39.0% and 12.2% of sites, respectively, while the height was not measured or it varied at 12.2%. The infilling phase stopped when the bladder appeared full at 2.4% of sites, infusion stopped itself at 12.2%, patient voided at 61.0%, volume attained age expected capacity at 12.2%, the patient was uncomfortable at 4.9% and results varied at 7.3%.

CONCLUSIONS:

Data reveal that voiding cystourethrogram is performed differently across North America and no standard protocol exists for the procedure. These differences could significantly impact voiding cystourethrogram results among institutions and taint our ability to compare results in the literature.

PMID:
21855922
DOI:
10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.006
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center