PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Avicenna J Med
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1814737
Original Article

Radiological Investigation of Acute Renal Colic: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit

Autor*innen

  • Ibrahim Abuelbeh

    1   Department of Urology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

  • Mohammed Nawaiseh

    2   Department of Ophthalmology, Jordanian Royal Medical Services, Amman, Jordan

  • Hussam Nawaiseh 

    2   Department of Ophthalmology, Jordanian Royal Medical Services, Amman, Jordan

  • Yahia Metwally

    3   Department of Gastroenterology, Mid Cheshire NHS Foundation Trust, Crewe, United Kingdom

  • Qais Nawaiseh

    4   School of Medicine, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

  • Sa'id Dabah Aljamal

    1   Department of Urology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

  • Anas Hattab

    5   Department of Radiology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

  • Yousef Alwan

    5   Department of Radiology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

  • Thomas Brophy

    1   Department of Urology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

  • Ian Pearce

    1   Department of Urology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

  • Vaibhav Modgil

    1   Department of Urology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

Funding This project did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background

Renal colic is a common urological emergency that requires a noncontrast computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) as the investigation of choice. This two-cycle audit was conducted at Manchester Royal Infirmary; a tertiary hospital in the United Kingdom. It evaluates the appropriateness of CT KUB imaging for acute renal colic, focusing on scan timing, diagnostic yield, and request adequacy in line with national guidelines.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients referred from the accident and emergency department for suspected renal colic. The first cycle was conducted in September to October 2022 and the second in August 2023. The intervention included disseminating the findings and designing an educational program. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 30.0. Continuous variables were compared using independent t-tests, and categorical variables using chi-square tests. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 153 patients were included (first cycle: 77; second cycle: 76). Following the intervention, the mean time from presentation to CT KUB report decreased significantly from 14.7 ± 9.5 to 8.2 ± 5.1 hours (p < 0.001). The proportion of scans reported within 24 hours also increased from 92.2 to 100% (p = 0.007). Documentation of a sufficient history improved from 76.6 to 89.5% (p = 0.034). Additionally, reports of nonspecific abdominal pain decreased from 9.1 to 0% (p = 0.007).

Conclusion

Targeted educational interventions improved CT KUB timeliness, request quality, and adherence to national guidelines. These results confirm the value of structured clinical pathways and cross-departmental collaboration in optimizing the investigation of suspected renal colic.

Keywords

renal colic - CT KUB - clinical audit - imaging guidelines - urolithiasis - urinary tract stones

Ethical Approval

Institutional approval was obtained from the Urology Clinical Audit Department at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (Approval #10927 and #11141).


Availability of Data and Materials

The analyzed data during the current study are available upon reasonable request.


Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization and design: I.A., Y.M., S.D.A.

Data curation: I.A., Y.M., S.D.A.

Formal analysis and data interpretation: M.N., H.N., Q.N.

Writing - original draft: I.A., M.N.

Writing - review & editing: I.A., M.N., S.D.A.

Referencing: M.N., H.N., Q.N.

Supervision and critical review: A.H., Y.A., T.B., I.P., V.M.

Authors' statement: All authors have approved the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The requirements for authorship in this project have been met, and each author believes that the manuscript represents honest work.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Dezember 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India