RESEARCH ARTICLE
Medical Expulsive Therapy in Acute Colic are We Justified?
Sekar Hariharasudhan, Deepak Ragoori, Sriram Krishnamoorthy, Sunil Shroff , Rajamanickam M.G*
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2014Volume: 7
First Page: 60
Last Page: 63
Publisher ID: TOUNJ-7-60
DOI: 10.2174/1874303X01407010060
Article History:
Received Date: 10/8/2014Revision Received Date: 7/6/2014
Acceptance Date: 7/6/2014
Electronic publication date: 24 /7/2014
Collection year: 2014
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
Abstract
Medical expulsive therapy (MET) is one of the most common conservative modality of treatment offered by general practitioners for ureteric colic and calculi. In many occasions, such treatment may have beneficial effect, but might be counter-productive, if offered inappropriately. We report a case of unilateral pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction with a large, redundant, extra renal pelvis that was misinterpreted in ultrasonography as hydroureteronephrosis. The dilatation was assumed to be due to ureteric calculus and hence treated with MET, that resulted in forniceal rupture and urinoma. The aim of this article is to highlight the possible catastrophe that can result as a result of inappropriate administration of MET, especially in those patients treated based on empirical diagnosis of ureteric colic.
