International Journal of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging
Login    Signup

International Journal of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging

2021, Vol. 4, Issue 4, Part A

A comparative evaluation of ultrasonography versus computed tomography in the assessment of retroperitoneal masses
Author(s)
Manoj MC, Prabhu CS and Lokesh T
Abstract
Background: Classification of retroperitoneal masses due to its specific masses aid in their accurate diagnosis and management. Evaluation of retroperitoneal masses are challenging due to overlapping imaging findings. Among the several imaging modalities, researchers have considered ultrasonography (USG) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as the imaging modalities of choice. The use of USG over MDCT was preferred in a rural population due to high cost and ionizing radiations of MDCT.
Aim and Objective: To evaluate the utility of USG and MDCT to identify and categorize retroperitoneal masses and to correlate the USG findings with that of MDCT.
Materials and Method: Seventy-two patients with signs and symptoms of retroperitoneal masses were evaluated by both USG and MDCT. Ultrasound characteristics like size, appearance, echotexture, vascularity and other findings were studied. The findings were then compared with the findings of MDCT. Subjects were evaluated for study variables from USG and CT which were presented as percentages. Based on percentages, the accuracy was calculated.
Results: Of the 72 patients included in the study, USG had accuracy of 76.4% in the identification and characterization of the retroperitoneal masses as compared to that of MDCT.
Conclusion: Ultrasound can be considered as the primary tool for evaluating retroperitoneal lesions and MDCT for confirmation and for evaluating the complete extent of the lesions.
Pages: 55-59 | Views: 85 | Downloads: 41
How to cite this article:
Manoj MC, Prabhu CS, Lokesh T. A comparative evaluation of ultrasonography versus computed tomography in the assessment of retroperitoneal masses. Int J Radiol Diagn Imaging 2021;4(4):55-59. DOI: 10.33545/26644436.2021.v4.i4a.241
International Journal of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging