ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Classically, presence of fever≥38.0°C is used to distinguish pyelonephritis from cystitis. We analyzed whether this is an appropriate marker to initiate further workup and whether temperature is correlated with urological abnormalities and further surgical or pharmacological intervention. METHODS: Children who presented for their first workup of urinary tract infection between October 1, 2008, and September 30, 2009 were retrospectively selected from our institution. Demographics and clinical details were correlated with the diagnosis of urological abnormalities and requirement for intervention. RESULTS: Age was the most important variable to predict urological abnormalities. The temperature value of 38.3°C maximized the balance between sensitivity (90%) and specificity (46%) for predicting the need to intervene and the presence of anatomical urological abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Young age (≤2 years) and temperature are the best factors to predict further intervention and urological abnormalities, with a temperature value of 38.3°C being a better predictive value than the currently used 38.0°C.
Subject(s)
Urinary Tract Infections/diagnosis , Urinary Tract/abnormalities , Urogenital Abnormalities/diagnosis , Vesico-Ureteral Reflux/diagnosis , Adolescent , Age Distribution , Analysis of Variance , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Incidence , Logistic Models , Male , Multivariate Analysis , Predictive Value of Tests , ROC Curve , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Distribution , Urinary Tract Infections/epidemiology , Urogenital Abnormalities/epidemiology , Vesico-Ureteral Reflux/epidemiologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: There are no current guidelines for diagnosing and managing mild prenatal hydronephrosis. Variations in physician approach make it difficult to analyze outcomes and establish optimal management. We determined the variability of diagnostic approach and management regarding prenatal hydronephrosis among maternal-fetal medicine obstetricians, pediatric urologists and pediatric radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online surveys were sent to mailing lists for national societies for each specialty. Participants were surveyed regarding criteria for diagnosing mild prenatal hydronephrosis and recommendations for postnatal management, including use of antibiotic prophylaxis, followup scheduling and type of followup imaging. RESULTS: A total of 308 maternal-fetal medicine obstetricians, 126 pediatric urologists and 112 pediatric radiologists responded. Pediatric urologists and radiologists were divided between Society for Fetal Urology criteria and use of anteroposterior pelvic diameter for diagnosis, while maternal-fetal medicine obstetricians preferred using the latter. For postnatal evaluation radiologists preferred using personal criteria, while urologists preferred using anteroposterior pelvic diameter or Society for Fetal Urology grading system. There was wide variation in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis among pediatric urologists. Regarding the use of voiding cystourethrography/radionuclide cystography in patients with prenatal hydronephrosis, neither urologists nor radiologists were consistent in their recommendations. Finally, there was no agreement on length of followup for mild prenatal hydronephrosis. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a lack of uniformity regarding grading criteria in diagnosing hydronephrosis prenatally and postnatally among maternal-fetal medicine obstetricians, pediatric urologists and pediatric radiologists. There was also a lack of agreement on the management of mild intermittent prenatal hydronephrosis, resulting in these cases being managed inconsistently. A unified set of guidelines for diagnosis, evaluation and management of mild intermittent prenatal hydronephrosis would allow more effective evaluation of outcomes.
