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 repres...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274087 |
| _version_ | 1811264479072092160 |
|---|---|
| author | Luciano Alves Faria Adriana Érica Wilkes Burton Meirelles Tilde Rodrigues Froes Thassila Caccia Feragi Cintra Daniel Peixoto Pereira Marcela Aldrovani Rodrigues Fernanda Nastri Gouvêa Caio Santos Pennacchi Najla Doutel Assaf Leandro Zuccolotto Crivellenti |
| author_facet | Luciano Alves Faria Adriana Érica Wilkes Burton Meirelles Tilde Rodrigues Froes Thassila Caccia Feragi Cintra Daniel Peixoto Pereira Marcela Aldrovani Rodrigues Fernanda Nastri Gouvêa Caio Santos Pennacchi Najla Doutel Assaf Leandro Zuccolotto Crivellenti |
| author_sort | Luciano Alves Faria |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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). |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T20:05:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e275e792439f45e89a23feeda1707868 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T20:05:03Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-e275e792439f45e89a23feeda17078682022-12-22T03:18:26ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032022-01-01179e027408710.1371/journal.pone.0274087Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs.Luciano Alves FariaAdriana Érica Wilkes Burton MeirellesTilde Rodrigues FroesThassila Caccia Feragi CintraDaniel Peixoto PereiraMarcela Aldrovani RodriguesFernanda Nastri GouvêaCaio Santos PennacchiNajla Doutel AssafLeandro Zuccolotto CrivellentiThe 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).https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274087 |
| spellingShingle | Luciano Alves Faria Adriana Érica Wilkes Burton Meirelles Tilde Rodrigues Froes Thassila Caccia Feragi Cintra Daniel Peixoto Pereira Marcela Aldrovani Rodrigues Fernanda Nastri Gouvêa Caio Santos Pennacchi Najla Doutel Assaf Leandro Zuccolotto Crivellenti Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs. PLoS ONE |
| title | Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs. |
| title_full | Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs. |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs. |
| title_short | Comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs. |
| title_sort | comparison of radiographic methods for detecting radiolucent uroliths in dogs |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274087 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lucianoalvesfaria comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT adrianaericawilkesburtonmeirelles comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT tilderodriguesfroes comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT thassilacacciaferagicintra comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT danielpeixotopereira comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT marcelaaldrovanirodrigues comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT fernandanastrigouvea comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT caiosantospennacchi comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT najladoutelassaf comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs AT leandrozuccolottocrivellenti comparisonofradiographicmethodsfordetectingradiolucenturolithsindogs |