Ultrasound as a diagnostic tool to differentiate acute from chronic renal failure

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorOzmen, C. A.
dc.contributor.authorAkin, D.
dc.contributor.authorBilek, S. U.
dc.contributor.authorBayrak, A. H.
dc.contributor.authorSenturk, S.
dc.contributor.authorNazaroglu, H.
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T17:18:50Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T17:18:50Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAim Renal ultrasound (US) is the most appropriate method for imaging renal failure; however, considerable overlap in renal size and renal echogenicity exists between normally and abnormally functioning kidneys We compared the sonographic features of kidneys in patients with renal failure to investigate the potential role of renal US to distinguish acute from chronic renal failure and assessed the diagnostic role of body surface area-corrected renal length compared to measured renal length Materials and methods We included 127 consecutive patients with serum creatinine levels higher than 3 mg/dl and 33 healthy volunteers The subjects with acute renal failure (ARF) and chronic renal failure (CRF) were compared for renal length, parenchymal thickness, parenchymal echogenicity, distinctness of the corticomedullary junction, and the presence of stones and cysts Results: No significant differences in age, serum albumin, creatinine, weight, height, or gender distribution were found between patients with ARF and those with CRF, except in serum hemoglobin. The flat and left kidney parenchymal thickness and renal length were significantly greater in ARF patients than in those with CRF (p < 0 0001). The mean parenchymal thickness and renal length were similar in ARF patients and the control group Grade I hyperechogenicity was the most common finding during sonography Conclusions Renal length, parenchymal thickness, and echogenicity differed significantly between patients with acute and chronic renal failure A renal US examination is still the most appropriate method for imaging renal failure and should be combined with other tests to distinguish acute from chronic renal failureen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2379/CN106407
dc.identifier.endpage52en_US
dc.identifier.issn0301-0430
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid20557866
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-77954707650
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage46en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2379/CN106407
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/18923
dc.identifier.volume74en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000280477100008
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherDustri-Verlag Dr Karl Feistleen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Nephrology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAcute Renal Failureen_US
dc.subjectChronic Renal Failureen_US
dc.subjectEchogenicityen_US
dc.subjectUltrasounden_US
dc.titleUltrasound as a diagnostic tool to differentiate acute from chronic renal failureen_US
dc.titleUltrasound as a diagnostic tool to differentiate acute from chronic renal failure
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu