Should Further Test Be Done After Finding Microscopic Blood In Urine?
I have microscopic blood in urine. I have had it for three years and now my doctor wants to investigate. I have no symptoms. i have had an ultra sound, which revealed nothing. He now wants to do further testing. Is it necessary? I am female, 57 years old. I weigh 155 and in good health.
Hi, Thanks for asking. Based on your query, my opinion is as follows. 1. Blood in urine for 3 years does require further tests. 2. Ultrasound would reveal only major abnormalities. Minor abnormalities requires biopsy. 3. Get a renal biopsy done to rule out any pathology in the kidney. Blood in urine is abnormal and for 3 years, definitely requires detailed investigation. Hope it helps. Any further queries, happy to help again.
I find this answer helpful
1 user finds this helpful
You found this answer helpful
Note: Consult a Urologist online for consultation about prostate and bladder problems, sexual dysfunction, kidney stones, prostate enlargement, urinary incontinence, impotence and erectile dysfunction - Click here.
Disclaimer: These answers are for your information only and not intended to replace your relationship with your treating physician.
This is a short, free answer.
For a more detailed, immediate answer, try our premium service
[Sample answer]
We use cookies in order to offer you most relevant experience and using this website you acknowledge that you have already read and understood our
Privacy Policy
Should Further Test Be Done After Finding Microscopic Blood In Urine?
Hi, Thanks for asking. Based on your query, my opinion is as follows. 1. Blood in urine for 3 years does require further tests. 2. Ultrasound would reveal only major abnormalities. Minor abnormalities requires biopsy. 3. Get a renal biopsy done to rule out any pathology in the kidney. Blood in urine is abnormal and for 3 years, definitely requires detailed investigation. Hope it helps. Any further queries, happy to help again.