PURPOSE: To compare current technology multislice computed tomography angiography (CTA) with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the pre-operative evaluation of vascular anatomy of living renal transplant donors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred and thirty-six kidneys were included in the CTA and MRA analysis. Renal vasculature was evaluated independently by two readers in each modality with a delay of 4 weeks between reading sessions. Surgical correlation on the operated side was available in all patients. The reference standard was defined by surgical correlation and consensus reading of both modalities. RESULTS: Detection rate of CTA for arteries was 99.1 and 95.0 % for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively. Detection rate of MRA for arteries was 95.0/94.3 %. Most of the undetected arteries were ≤ 1 mm diameter (reader 1: 2 of 3 in CTA and 9 of 16 in MRA; reader 2: 11 of 16 in CTA, and 8 of 18 in MRA). Detection rates for arteries ≥ 2 mm for reader 1/reader 2 were 99.7/98.7 % in CTA and 99.1/97.8 % in MRA, respectively. Detection rates for veins were 99.6/97.4 % in CTA and 97.8/96.9 % in MRA, respectively. Both readers misdiagnosed between 0 and 1 non-present arteries and between 2 and 3 non-present veins in both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Modern multislice CT and MRI scanners allow highly accurate evaluation of the vascular anatomy, especially for vessels of ≥ 2 mm diameter. CTA may provide slightly better depiction of very small arteries; however, this may be reader-dependent. Additional factors affecting the choice of imaging modality should include local availability, cost, and the desire to avoid ionizing radiation in healthy transplant donors.
PURPOSE: To compare current technology multislice computed tomography angiography (CTA) with magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in the pre-operative evaluation of vascular anatomy of living renal transplant donors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Two hundred and thirty-six kidneys were included in the CTA and MRA analysis. Renal vasculature was evaluated independently by two readers in each modality with a delay of 4 weeks between reading sessions. Surgical correlation on the operated side was available in all patients. The reference standard was defined by surgical correlation and consensus reading of both modalities. RESULTS: Detection rate of CTA for arteries was 99.1 and 95.0 % for reader 1 and reader 2, respectively. Detection rate of MRA for arteries was 95.0/94.3 %. Most of the undetected arteries were ≤ 1 mm diameter (reader 1: 2 of 3 in CTA and 9 of 16 in MRA; reader 2: 11 of 16 in CTA, and 8 of 18 in MRA). Detection rates for arteries ≥ 2 mm for reader 1/reader 2 were 99.7/98.7 % in CTA and 99.1/97.8 % in MRA, respectively. Detection rates for veins were 99.6/97.4 % in CTA and 97.8/96.9 % in MRA, respectively. Both readers misdiagnosed between 0 and 1 non-present arteries and between 2 and 3 non-present veins in both modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Modern multislice CT and MRI scanners allow highly accurate evaluation of the vascular anatomy, especially for vessels of ≥ 2 mm diameter. CTA may provide slightly better depiction of very small arteries; however, this may be reader-dependent. Additional factors affecting the choice of imaging modality should include local availability, cost, and the desire to avoid ionizing radiation in healthy transplant donors.
Authors: Saravanan Namasivayam; Mannudeep K Kalra; Sandra M Waldrop; Pardeep K Mittal; William C Small Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Niels F M Kok; Leonienke F C Dols; M G Myriam Hunink; Ian P J Alwayn; Khe T C Tran; Willem Weimar; Jan N M Ijzermans Journal: Transplantation Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: K Tsuda; T Murakami; T Kim; Y Narumi; S Takahashi; K Tomoda; S Takahara; A Okuyama; H Oi; H Nakamura Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1998 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Saravanan Namasivayam; William C Small; Mannudeep K Kalra; William E Torres; Kenneth A Newell; Pardeep K Mittal Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Ingolf A Turk; Serdar Deger; John W Davis; Markus Giesing; Michael D Fabrizio; Bernd Schönberger; Gerald H Jordan; Stefan A Loening Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: K Chabchoub; M N Mhiri; A Bahloul; S Fakhfakh; I Ben Hmida; M Hadj Slimen; W Charfi; M Abdennader; I Frikha; J Hachicha Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Matthew Laugharne; Elizabeth Haslam; Lesley Archer; Lyn Jones; David Mitchell; Eric Loveday; Paul Lear; Mark Thornton Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: S T Tombul; F T Aki; M Gunay; K Inci; T Hazirolan; M Karcaaltincaba; I Erkan; A Bakkaloglu; U Yasavul; M Bakkaloglu Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Fernanda Garozzo Velloni; Patrícia Prando Cardia; Ulysses Dos Santos Torres; Marco Antonio Haddad Pereira; Thiago José Penachim; Larissa Rossini Favaro; Miguel Ramalho; Giuseppe D'Ippolito Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2020 Jul-Aug
Authors: Meenakshi Narasimhamurthy; Lachlan M Smith; Jason T Machan; Steven E Reinert; Reginald Y Gohh; Lance D Dworkin; Basma Merhi; Nikunjkumar Patel; Michael D Beland; Susie L Hu Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2016-10-04
Authors: Chaudhry Adeel Ebad; David Brennan; Julio Chevarria; Mohammad Bin Hussein; Donal Sexton; Douglas Mulholland; Ciaran Doyle; Patrick O'Kelly; Yvonne Williams; Ruth Dunne; Conall O'Seaghdha; Dilly Little; Martina Morrin; Peter J Conlon Journal: J Transplant Date: 2021-07-09