Midazolam Enhances Ureter Visualization in Children Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Urography
Journal of Pediatric Nephrology,
Vol. 2 No. 4 (2014),
26 Aban 2014
,
Page 151-153
https://doi.org/10.22037/jpn.v2i4.7143
Abstract
Introduction: Magnetic Resonance Urography (MRU) is a popular method for identifying uropathies in children. Some children are not cooperative for such examinations and are sedated. We decided to evaluate the effects of midazolam as a sedative drug on ureter visualization in patients undergoing MRU.
Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in Paytkaht Medical Imaging Center, Tehran, Iran. Two hundred and three children with urologic diseases were divided into 2 groups. Patients in the non-cooperative group received midazolam prior to MRU.
Results: Our findings showed that non-cooperative children had a better ureter visualization on MRU (P<0.01).
Conclusions: Midazolam increased ureter visualization possibly by reduction in the ureter peristaltic motility. Therefore, its use could shorten the duration of MRU. It is beneficial to use midazolam in all children who undergo MRU.
Keywords: Diagnostic Imaging, MRI; Urography; Midzolam; Child; Ureter.
How to Cite
References
Grattan-Smith, Little SB, Jones R. MR urography in children: how we do it. Pediatr Radiol, 2008;38:S3-17.
Leyendecker JR, Barnes CE, Zagoria RJ. MR urography: techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics, 2008;28(1):23-46.
Riccabona M. Feasibility of MR urography in neonates and infants with anomalies of the upper urinary tract. Eur Radiol. 2002;12(6):1442-50.
Nolte-Ernsting N. MR urography today. Abdom Imaging.2003;28(2):191-209.
Garcia-Valtuille R. Magnetic resonance urography: a pictorial overview. Br J Radiol.2006; 79(943):614-26.
Amin J, Weiss DS. GABAA receptor needs two homologous domains activation by GABA but not by pentobarbital. Nature.1993;366:565–569
Elder JS, Longenecker R. Premedication with oral midazolam for voiding cystourethrography in children: safety and efficacy. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1995;164:1229–32.
Lin TF. Antiemetic and analgesic-sparing effects of diphenhydramine added to morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94(6): p. 835-9.
Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN, et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. American Journal of Gastroenterology2006;101:967–74.
Mancuso CE, Tanzi MG, Gabay M. Paradoxical reactions to benzodiazepines: literature review and treatment options. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24:1177–85.
Bahal-O’Mara N, Nahata MC, Murray RD, et al. Sedation with meperidine and midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing endoscopy. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1994;47:319–23.
Golparvar M, Saghaei M, Sajedi P, et al. Paradoxical reaction following intra-venous midazolam premedication in pediatric patients – a randomized placebo controlled trial of ketamine for rapid tranquilization. Paediatric Anaesthesia.2004;14:924–30.
Taea H, Kanga K, Mina Y, Ahn H B, et al. Paradoxical reaction to midazolam in patients undergoing endoscopy under sedation: Incidence, risk factors and the effect of flumazenil. Digestive and Liver Disease. 2014;46:710–715.
Brown D, Arthur D. Subcutaneous midazolam as a cause of extrapyramidal side effects in a patient with prostate cancer. Jof Pain and Sympt Manage. 2007;34:111-113.
- Abstract Viewed: 395 times
- PDF Downloaded: 238 times