Get your health question answered instantly from our pool of 18000+ doctors from over 80 specialties

129 Doctors Online
Doctor Image
Dr. Andrew Rynne

Family Physician

Exp 50 years

I will be looking into your question and guiding you through the process. Please write your question below.

Abdominal pain, CT urogram showed no urolithiasis, no pelvic mass abnormality. Was this an abdominal CT?

Answered by
Dr. Ranjeet Jagdale


Practicing since :2005

Answered : 34 Questions

Posted on Sat, 30 Jun 2012 in Abdominal Pain
Question: I went in to the ER today complaining of stomach pain.

I told them I had abdominal pain and they did a CT Urogram.

The results are as follows:

Radiologist Wet Read

1. No urolithiasis or obstructive uropathy.
2. No intra-abdominal, retroperitoneal, or pelvic mass abnormality or abnormal fluid collection.
3. No acute appearing bowel related abnormality.

Was this an abdominal CT? Could they see the liver, pancreas and gallbladder with this and notice if any of those were abnormal. The doctor said they could but focused on the kidneys? My question is are the other organs ok? I think the scan started right at the bottom of my ribs and went belowemy pelvis. Are these scans double checked for accuracy?
Answered by Dr. Ranjeet Jagdale 9 hours later
Thanks for writing in.
When a computerised tomography scan (CT scan) of the KUB region ( kidney-ureter-bladder region), while the scan mainly focuses on the kidneys, ureters and bladders, we have a look at the other organs as well.
However, since your report says "No intra-abdominal, retroperitoneal, or pelvic mass abnormality or abnormal fluid collection", it means that the other organs are normal on plain scan.
Also, since this scan was done without injecting a XXXXXXX some abnormalities may not be detected. However, it is highly unlikely that a big mass is missed. So we can comfortably say that the other organs namely liver, spleen and pancreas are normal.
I hope I have addressed your concerns.

Above answer was peer-reviewed by : Dr. Aparna Kohli
Follow up: Dr. Ranjeet Jagdale 19 hours later
So if there was a tumor of some sort on any other organ it would stick out?

Is this scan better than an abdominal ultrasound as far as catching abnormalties?
Answered by Dr. Ranjeet Jagdale 22 minutes later
Thanks for writing back.
As I said, any big mass would certainly not go unnoticed, however since a contrast scan has not been done certain abnormalities may not be picked up.
An ultrasound (USG) has its own advantages and limitations and I cannot give you blanket answer as to which one of the two ( plain CT scan and ultrasound) is better.
A Contrast CT scan is however better than USG but it involves lot of radiation dose and around 120ml contrast has to be injected.
So, the choice of investigation always depends on patients complaints, the organ to be evaluated and the disease under consideration.
Hope this helps

Above answer was peer-reviewed by : Dr. Aparna Kohli

The User accepted the expert's answer

Share on
Question is related to
Diseases and Conditions ,   ,   ,   ,   ,  
Lab Tests
Medical Topics

Recent questions on  Peritoneum

doctor1 MD

There is immediate and satisfactory opacification of the uterine cavity showing smooth marginal outline and normal mucosal pattern. There are no definite evidence for filling defectsnor abnormal areas of extrinsic deformities. The left fallopian tube is unopacified. There is well visualization of the right fallopian tube showing normal caliber and course with spillage of contrast into the peritoneal cavity. What does this mean?

doctor1 MD

Hi, I am XXXXXX, today I got ultrasound upper abdomen. Results are The liver is enlarged in size & measures 17.2 cms in long axis. Shape and echo texture are normal. No focal lesion is seen. Intrahepatic biliary radicals are normal. The gall bladder is well distended with bile. No calculi seen. Gall bladder shows normal wall thickness. CBD and portal vein are normal. The pancreas is normal in size, shape and echotexture. The spleen is normal in size, shape and echotexture. Both the kidneys are normal in size, shape and echotexture. The Rt kidney measures 104.4 * 52.5mm. The Lt. kidney measures 100.7 * 50.6 mm. The Lt kidney measures 100.7 * 50.6 mm. Renal sinus echoes are normal. No calculus seen. Corticomedullary differentiation are intact. No free fluid/ retroperitoneal lymph nodes seen. Conclusion: Hepatomegaly. - The collecting system of both the kidneys is normal and cortico-medullary demarcation is clear. - Parenchymal thickness is normal . No calculus / mass / cyst seen on either side, The spleen is normal in size and has a normal homogenous echo-texture - The pancreas is normal in size and shape and has a normal homogenous echotexture. Pancreatic duct is not dilated.

doctor1 MD

twenty years ago i had renal failure and havehad two failed transplants. two years ago i had cancer in two kidneys; in the transplanted and natural kidneys. they were successfully removed and im on peritoneal dialysis.unfortunately i cannot urinate but certiain duct comes when i use the toilet and this has a horible smell.what is the solution?

doctor1 MD

Can Angiodysplasia of the colon be caused/aggravated by an injury? Example; Auto accident. seat belt causing severe injury to abdomen. Thank you

doctor1 MD


doctor1 MD

Hey doctor, For the last couple of weeks, I have been having this heavy ache feeling in my upper abdomen just below my ribs, I have attached an image of where exactly. But it hurts quite a bit and it sometimes feels itchy inside my skin in that...

doctor1 MD

Hi, I was given this report from a HSG test. Could you please tell me what this means? etro flexed uterine cavity, normal patency and contrast spill into the peritoneum left was demonstrated, faint whisp of contrast was seen in the proximal right fallopian tube. Contrast was not confidently identified beyond this. No definite contrast spill was seen on the right side of the pelvic perenial cavity.Left fallopian tube faint contrast line outlining the proximal right fallopian tube was seen but no contrast opacifleation beyond this. No definite spill of contrast into the peritoneum on the right side was demonstrated and therefore right tubal patency cannot be confirmed