Making the transition: the role of helical CT in the evaluation of potentially acute thoracic aortic injuries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to show that helical CT could be used at our center in lieu of routine aortography to examine patients who have had serious blunt chest trauma. We also wanted to assess the potential savings of using CT to avoid unnecessary aortography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved the parallel imaging-CT immediately followed by aortography-of patients presenting with blunt chest trauma between August 1997 and August 1998. To screen patients for potential aortic injuries, we performed parallel imaging on 142 patients, and these patients comprised our patient population. CT examinations of the patients were reviewed for signs of injury by radiologists who were unaware of each other's interpretations and the aortographic results. Findings of CT examinations were classified as negative, positive, or inconclusive for injury. Aortography was performed immediately after CT. The technical and professional fees for both transcatheter aortography and helical CT were also compared. RESULTS: Our combined kappa value for all CT interpretations was 0.714. The aortographic sensitivity and negative predictive value were both 100%. Likewise, the sensitivity and negative predictive value of CT were 100%. The total costs of performing aortography were estimated at approximately $402,900, whereas those for performing helical CT were estimated at $202,800. CONCLUSION: Helical CT has a sensitivity and negative predictive value equivalent to that of aortography. Using CT to eliminate the possibility of mediastinal hematoma and to evaluate the cause of an abnormal aortic contour in a trauma patient allows us to use aortography more selectively. Avoiding the performance of unnecessary aortography will expedite patient care and reduce costs. We report the results of our experience with CT and how our center successfully made this transition in the initial examination of patients with serious thoracic trauma.

Optimal method of urgent decompression of the collecting system for obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi.

PURPOSE: We compare the efficacy of percutaneous nephrostomy with retrograde ureteral catheterization for renal drainage in cases of obstruction and infection associated with ureteral calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomized 42 consecutive patients presenting with obstructing ureteral calculi and clinical signs of infection (temperature greater than 38 C and/or white blood count greater than 17,000/mm.3) to drainage with percutaneous nephrostomy or retrograde ureteral catheterization. Preoperative patient and stone characteristics, procedural parameters, clinical outcomes and costs were assessed for each group. RESULTS: Urine cultures obtained at drainage were positive in 62.9% of percutaneous nephrostomy and 19.1% of retrograde ureteral catheterization patients. There was no significant difference in the time to treatment between the 2 groups. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were significantly shorter in the retrograde ureteral catheterization (32.7 and 5.1 minutes, respectively) compared with the percutaneous nephrostomy (49.2 and 7.7 minutes, respectively) group. One treatment failure occurred in the percutaneous nephrostomy group, which was successfully salvaged with retrograde ureteral catheterization. Time to normal temperature was 2.3 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy and 2.6 in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group, and time to normal white blood count was 2 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy and 1.7 days in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group (p not significant). Length of stay was 4.5 days in the percutaneous nephrostomy group compared with 3.2 days in the retrograde ureteral catheterization group (p not significant). Cost analysis revealed that retrograde ureteral catheterization was twice as costly as percutaneous nephrostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Retrograde ureteral catheterization and percutaneous nephrostomy effectively relieve obstruction and infection due to ureteral calculi. Neither modality demonstrated superiority in promoting a more rapid recovery after drainage. Percutaneous nephrostomy is less costly than retrograde ureteral catheterization. The decision of which mode of drainage to use may be based on logistical factors, surgeon preference and stone characteristics.