Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for

  • Author or Editor: Joanne M. Hughes x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search


Objective—To determine sensitivity and specificity of radiography, ultrasonography, and antegrade pyelography for detection of ureteral obstructions in cats.

Design—Retrospective study.

Animals—11 cats.

Procedure—Medical records of cats that had radiography, ultrasonography, and antegrade pyelography performed for suspected ureteral obstructions were examined. Ultrasound-guided pyelocentesis and fluoroscopic- assisted antegrade pyelography were performed on 18 kidneys in 11 cats. Obstructive ureteral lesions were confirmed in all cats by surgical or necropsy examination. Sensitivity and specificity of survey radiography, ultrasonography, and antegrade pyelography for identification of ureteral obstructions were calculated. Surgical or necropsy findings were used as the standard for comparison.

Results—All cats were azotemic. Mean ± SD serum creatinine and BUN concentrations were 10.2 ± 6.1 and 149 ± 82 mg/dL, respectively. Fifteen of 18 ureters were found to be obstructed at surgery or necropsy. Sensitivity and specificity were 60 and 100% for radiography and 100 and 33% for ultrasonography, respectively, in identification of ureteral obstructions. Leakage of contrast material developed in 8 of 18 kidneys during antegrade pyelography and prevented diagnostic interpretation in 5 of 18 studies. For the 13 diagnostic studies, specificity and sensitivity were 100% by use of the antegrade pyelography technique. Correct identification of the anatomic location of the ureteral obstruction was obtained in 100% of diagnostic antegrade pyelography studies and in 60% of radiography or ultrasonography studies.

Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Antegrade pyelography can be a useful alternative in the diagnosis and localization of ureteral obstructions in azotemic cats, although leakage of contrast material may prevent interpretation of the study. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:1576–1581)

Full access
in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association