Possibilities of Computed Tomography Urography and Magnetic Resonance Urography as Up-To-Date and Informative Techniques in the Diagnosis of Traumatic Ureteral Strictures

Objective. To assess the sensitivity of computed tomography urography (CTU) and magnetic resonance urography (MRU) (native versus contrast-enhanced studies) in patients with traumatic ureteral strictures.

Material and methods. The data of 51 CTUs and 34 MRUs made in patients with upper urinary tract injuries were prospectively analyzed. The studies were performed using an Aquilion Prime 160-slice scanner (Toshiba, Japan) and high-field devices at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 Tesla Vantage Atlas (Toshiba, Japan) and at 3.0 Tesla Ingenia (Philips, Netherlands). Excretory urography was also carried out in 92.2% of cases; ultrasound examination was made in 74.5%. The degree of obstruction, its causes, the state of the adjacent structures, and the presence of complications were assessed.

Results. All (100%) CTU studies correctly estimated the level of stricture of the ureter; the lower third of the organ was involved most frequently (68.6%). MRU identified traumatic strictures in 94.0% of cases. MRU and CTU could be confined to native series in 51.0 and 27.5% of patients, respectively. MRU more commonly revealed the changes concurrent with injuries: there was diffuse ureter wall thickening in 44.1% (27.5% at for CTU), periureteral fat infiltration in 43.1% (37.2% at CTU), and pelvic fluid accumulation in 9.8% (7.8% at with CTU). The techniques could also establish the presence of sinus tracts: MRU was useful in the preoperative imaging of pathological fistulas in 100%. CTU was able to demonstrate the leakage of a contrast agent and/or its flow into the vagina in 66.7%.

Conclusion. MRU demonstrates the sensitivity comparable to that of CTU in detecting ureteral injuries (including in diagnosing complications, such as fistulas) and can be used in patients with contraindications to CTU and, due to the absence of ionizing radiation, for follow-up studies.

1. Gromov A.I., Buylov V.M. (Eds) Radiology and therapy in urology. National guide. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2011 (in Russ.).

2. Siegel R.L., Miller K., Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer. J. Clin. 2018; 68 (1): 7–30. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21442

3. Vasilyeva M.A., Egorova E.A. Capabilities of ultrasound study and computed tomography in the diagnosis of circumscribed peritonitis in ureteral perforation. Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2011; 2: 55–8 (in Russ.).

4. Loran O.B., Seregin A.V., Dovlatov Z.A. Surgical treatment of iatrogenic strictures of the lower third of ureter in women. Eksperimental’naya i Klinicheskaya Urologiya (Experimental and Clinical Urology). 2015; 3: 128–31 (in Russ.).

5. Vinogradova O.A. Role of multislice computed tomography in the diagnosis of urological complications after operations on the pelvic organs in women. Radiology – Practice. 2016; 1 (55): 14–23 (in Russ.).

6. Klap J., Phe V., Chartier E., Mozer P., Bitker M.O., Roupert M. Aetiology and management of iatrogenic injury of the ureter. A review. Progres en urologie. J. Ass. Franc. Urol. Soc. Franc. Urol. 2013; 2 (22): 913–9.

7. Siram S.M., Gerald S.Z., Greene W.R., Hughes K., Oyetunji T.A., Chrouser K. et al. Ureteral trauma: patterns and mechanisms of injury of an uncommon condition. Am.J. Surg. 2010; 199: 566–70.

8. Esparaz A.M., Pearl J.A., Herts B.R., Le Blanc J., Kapoor B. Iatrogenic urinary tract injuries: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Semin. Interv. Radiol. 2015; 2: 195–208.

9. Berezovskaya T.P., Silant’eva N.K., Beketova O.G. Radiology of urological complications after treatment of pelvic tumors. Part 1. Urinary fistulas. Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2017; 98 (2): 111–8 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20862/0042-4676-2017-98-2-111-118

10. Shirshov V.N., Doranchuk D.N., Shatirishvily О.K., Konstantinova I.М., Obolonkov V.Yu., Lebedev Yu.I. Experience in the treatment of iatrogenic damage of the ureters. Clinical Practice. 2016; 1 (25): 3–9 (in Russ.).

11. Raju A.G., Aneesh M., Jyotindu D., Lovleen S., Piyush J. Intravenous urography supplemented with computerized tomography urogram: a pragmatic hybrid imaging approach to hydronephrosis. Indian J. Urol. 2012; 28 (4): 456–60. DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.105787

12. Silverman S.G. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology. 2009; 250: 309–32. DOI: 10.1148/radiol. 2502080534

13. Ergen F.B., Hussain H.K., Karlos R.C. 3D-excretory MR urography: improved image quality with intravenous saline and diuretic administration. J. Magn. Res. Imag. 2007; 25: 783–9. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20875

14. Takahashi N., Kawashima A., Glockner J.F., Hartman R.P., Kim B. MR urography for suspected upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur. Radiol. 2009; 19: 912–23. DOI: 10.1007/ s00330-008-1228-y

15. Blandino A., Minutoli F., Gaeta M. MR pyelography in the assesement of hydroureteronephrosis: single-shot thickslab RARE versus multislice HASTE sequences. Abdom. Imag. 2013; 28: 433–9.

16. Summerton D.J., Kitrey N.D., Lumen N., Serafetinidis E., Djakovic N. EAU guidelines on iatrogenic trauma. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 628–39. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo. 2012.05.058