[Preoperative diagnosis of abdominal space-occupying lesions in childhood]

Between 1977 to 1986 results of ultrasonography in 56 patients has been compared with computed tomography (CT), excretory urography, and in 19 cases with arteriography. In comparison to ultrasonography CT proved superior in diagnosing dignity (87% vs. 78%); in appointing to the original organ, and in diagnosing the type of tumour angiography turned out to be clearly superior to CT (89% vs. 65%, and 79% vs. 43%, resp.) Addition of CT to ultrasonography resulted in a gain of 10% concerning dignity, of 30% concerning appointing to the origin, and of 24% with respect to typing. With the question of renal or extrarenal origin of a mass lesion the EUG proved to be indispencable. The following procedure is recommended: in kidney-related tumours US plus EUG, in other cases additional imaging techniques only for special problems, or specific questions preoperatively. The routine implementation of computed tomography in abdominal masses seems not to be necessary.