Renal ultrasonography is an excellent, readily available, and safe preliminary screening examination of the condictions delineated in this article. Although CT offers the advantages of less operator dependency, better resolution and higher specificity, it is often not available routinely in all institutions, is more expensive than ultrasound, often requires the use of intravenous contrast material, and utilizes ionizing radiation. Pollack and associates have published an excellent article comparing these two modalities in the diagnosis of renal masses, to which the reader is referred. Incubent upon the sonographer is the recognition of the strengths and limitations of renal ultrasound in the light of current technology, the utilization of all available clinical information in formulating the differential diagnosis, and the recommendation of other appropriate imaging modalities for confirmation of the final diagnosis.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||18|
|Journal||Radiologic Clinics of North America|
|State||Published - Jan 1 1984|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging