oa Value of Magnetic Resonance Urography Versus Computerized Tomography Urography (CTU) in Evaluation of Obstructive Uropathy: An Observational Study

Background: Obstructive uropathy is a common public health issue that requires imaging research for providing necessary information. The data is important for determining treatment options, and may influence selective management choices. Objective: The aim of the study is to determine whether magnetic resonance urography or computerized tomography urography is the best imaging modality among patients with suspected obstructive uropathy. Methods: Seventy patients; referred from the emergency department for the evaluation of renal colic or hematuria that highly suggested urinary tract abnormalities, were prospectively enrolled. Thirty five women and 35 men were categorized with a mean age of 43.52 years and the mean body weight of 61.31 kg. All participants underwent abdominal ultrasonography and clinical examination to detect the causes of urinary obstruction. Pregnant women were excluded from the study. Both magnetic resonance urography and computerized tomography urography were performed within 30 days of each analysis. Results: Only 54.3% of the participants had urinary stones. Mean size of the renal stone was 11 mm; while mean size of the ureteral stone was 3.8 mm. The approach of magnetic resonance is not only limited to diagnosis, but is also effectively involved in the real time investigations. MRU has more reliability in terms of the diagnosis and anatomic presentation of the kidneys along with the vasculature. All cases of urinary stones were detected by computed tomography (100%); whereas, 78.9% cases were detected by magnetic resonance urography. Conclusion: Computerized tomography urography is more sensitive in detecting kidney stones; whereas, magnetic resonance urography is better in detecting pathology behind the development of kidney stones.