Objective
We aimed to investigate the causes and clinical and laboratory features of patients with ureteritis observed on intravenous contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic computed tomography (APCT) conducted in the emergency department (ED).
Methods
All APCTs conducted in the ED from November 2017 to November 2020 were investigated for the presence of ureteritis. The incidence of ureteritis, presumed cause of ureteritis, and clinical as well as laboratory features of patients with ureteritis were retrospectively analyzed.
Results
Ureteritis was observed in 422 out of 7,386 patients (5.7%) who underwent APCTs. The two main reasons for undergoing APCT in the ED were abdominal pain (49%) and infection focus workup (33%). The first major cause of ureteritis was urinary tract infection (UTI) (351 of 422, 83%). Most patients (85%) were febrile, but 208 (59%) exhibited no urinary symptoms such as dysuria, increased frequency, or residual urine sense. The second major cause of ureteritis was ureteral stones (42 of 422, 10%). Thirty-two of 42 patients (76%) had simple obstructive uropathy, while 24% of patients had a combined infection along with an obstruction. Other rare causes were malignancy and the spread of adjacent inflammation.
Conclusion
Ureteritis was a common finding observed in 5.7% of patients who underwent APCTs at the ED, and most of them were secondary to UTIs and ureteral stones. UTIs can cause ureteritis even without typical symptoms or signs suggestive of UTI, and diagnosis without an APCT can be difficult. More liberal use of APCTs should be considered when the cause of fever is difficult to diagnose.

Objective
We aimed to evaluate the factors influencing treatment option selection among urologists for patients with ureteral stones, according to the stone diameter and location.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 360 consecutive patients who, between January 2009 and June 2014, presented to the emergency department with renal colic and were eventually diagnosed with urinary stones via computed tomography. The maximal horizontal and longitudinal diameter and location of the stones were investigated. We compared parameters between patients who received urological intervention (group 1) and those who received medical treatment (group 2).
Results
Among the 360 patients, 179 (49.7%) had stones in the upper ureter and 181 (50.3%) had stones in the lower ureter. Urologic intervention was frequently performed in cases of upper ureteral stones (P<0.001). In groups 1 and 2, the stone horizontal diameters were 5.5 mm (4.8 to 6.8 mm) and 4.0 mm (3.0 to 4.6 mm), stone longitudinal diameters were 7.5 mm (6.0 to 9.5 mm) and 4.4 mm (3.0 to 5.5 mm), and ureter diameters were 6.4 mm (5.0 to 8.0 mm) and 4.7 mm (4.0 to 5.3 mm), respectively (P<0.001). The cut-off values for the horizontal and longitudinal stone diameters in the upper ureter were 4.45 and 6.25 mm, respectively (sensitivity 81.3%, specificity 91.4%); those of the lower ureter were 4.75 and 5.25 mm, respectively (sensitivity 79.4%, specificity 79.4%).
Conclusion
The probability of a urologic intervention was higher for patients with upper ureteral stones and those with stone diameters exceeding 5 mm horizontally and 6 mm longitudinally.