الفهرس 
List of tablesOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 151 |  |  |
| | | from | 151 | | |
Abstract
Hematuria is one of the most common presentations of patients with urinary tract diseases; therefore, it is a common reason for urinary tract imaging.
There is no universal agreement about the optimal imaging work up of hematuria. Several protocols for the investigation of hematuria have been developed but they vary considerably and a lack of robust data from randomized control trials makes it difficult to formulate evidence-based guidelines.
Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly valuable tools for assessing the urinary tract and hematuria in adults and children. However, their imaging capabilities, while overlapping in some respects, should be considered as complementary, as each technique offers specific advantages and disadvantages both in actual inherent qualities of the technique and in specific patients and with a specific diagnostic question. The use of CT and MRI should therefore be tailored to the patient and the clinical question.
CT urography provides a detailed anatomic depiction of each of the major portions of the urinary tract, the kidneys, intrarenal collecting systems, ureters, and bladder and thus allows patients with hematuria to be evaluated comprehensively. The main limitation of CTU is the associated radiation exposure and this was initially a major factor which prevented it from becoming universally accepted as the first-line investigation in patients with hematuria. CT serves as a “one-stop shop” imaging test for patients, thereby saving time and hospital visits and leading to earlier diagnosis. Examination protocols should be tailored to the patient while all the while optimizing radiation dose.
MR urography can be used also to evaluate the urinary tract and has the advantage of not using ionizing radiation and the potential to provide more functional information than CT. However, MR urography is less established and less reliably results in diagnostic image quality relative to CT urography.
Conclusion and recommendation:
All causes of hematuria of urologic origin were almost covered using multidetector CT and/or 1.5 tesla MR imaging that was very conclusive compared to the previous traditional examinations that the patient had. These images have met good acceptance by the referring urologist that was comparable to endoscopic and surgical results, proving that MDCT and MRI can give accurate evaluation for hematuria instead of performing multiple traditional studies that may expose the patient to frequent contrast material & to frequent radiation exposure. We recommend CT as an initial and comprehensive investigation of hematuria unless contraindicated and MRI is a good alternative.