{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.039634146341463415, 'fraction_numerical': 0.040396341463414635, 'mean_word_length': 4.9411764705882355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The comparison of the incidence of horseshoe kidney in autopsy cases versus urologic patient population.

This study was applied on 9665 cases between January 1993 and October 1998. Of these, 6985 (72.3%) were urologic patients and 2680 (27.7%) were autopsy cases. The patients having urinary complaint investigated by urine analysis and kidney-ureter-bladder film (KUB), routinely. In all patients who have pathological urine, ultrasonography exam was done and in all patients who established an abnormality on ultrasonography, intravenous pyelography (IVP) was taken, also. We established the horseshoe kidney in 23 of patients (1/304) and in 6 of autopsy cases (1/447) with overall incidence 1/333. There were 21 male and 8 female with horseshoe kidney (male/female = 2.6/1). Abdominal discomfort with lower lumbar pain and Rovsing's sign were seen in 56.5% and in 65.2% of patients respectively. We concluded that horseshoe kidney incidence is almost the same as reported in the literature, although its clinical appearance is higher in our urologic patient population. In the urological out-patient evaluation, at least Rovsing's sign should be applied to all patients with lower lumbar pain with vague abdominal discomfort and an abdominal ultrasonographic exam should be applied, if this sign is positive.