4.7 Article

Imaging in scrotal trauma: a European Society of Urogenital Radiology Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group (ESUR-SPIWG) position statement

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 7, 页码 4918-4928

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07631-w

关键词

Scrotum; Trauma; Doppler; Ultrasonography; Testis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Greyscale and Colour Doppler ultrasound are main imaging modalities for scrotal trauma, with Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography as advanced techniques for equivocal cases. ESUR-SPIWG provides guidance for the utilization of multiparametric ultrasound in scrotal trauma evaluation.
Imaging plays a crucial role in the evaluation of scrotal trauma. Among the imaging modalities, greyscale ultrasound and Colour Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) are the primary techniques with the selective utilisation of advanced techniques such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and elastography. Despite ultrasound being the mainstay of imaging scrotal trauma, its diagnostic performance is not fully established. Considering these difficulties and their impact on clinical practice, the Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR-SPIWG) established an expert task force to review the current literature and consolidate their expertise on examination standards and imaging appearances of various entities in scrotal trauma. This paper provides the position statements agreed on by the task force with the aim of providing guidance for the use of imaging especially multiparametric US in scrotal trauma. Key Points Greyscale and Colour Doppler ultrasound are the mainstay of imaging in patients with scrotal trauma. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography are the advanced techniques useful as a problem-solving modality in equivocal cases. This paper summarises the position statements of the ESUR-SPIWG on the appropriate utilisation of multiparametric ultrasound and other imaging modalities in the evaluation of scrotal trauma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据