| Literature DB >> 25667626 |
Junmei Wang1, Weiwen Ying2, Daxing Tang3, Liming Yang1, Dongsheng Liu4, Yuanhui Liu1, Jiaoe Pan1, Xing Xie5.
Abstract
The present study evaluated the prognostic value of three-dimensional ultrasound for fetal hydronephrosis. Pregnant females with fetal hydronephrosis were enrolled and a novel three-dimensional ultrasound indicator, renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume, was introduced to predict the postnatal prognosis of fetal hydronephrosis in comparison with commonly used ultrasound indicators. All ultrasound indicators of fetal hydronephrosis could predict whether postnatal surgery was required for fetal hydronephrosis; however, the predictive performance of renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume measurements as an individual indicator was the highest. In conclusion, ultrasound is important in predicting whether postnatal surgery is required for fetal hydronephrosis, and the three-dimensional ultrasound indicator renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume has a high predictive performance. Furthermore, the majority of cases of fetal hydronephrosis spontaneously regress subsequent to birth, and the regression time is closely associated with ultrasound indicators.Entities:
Keywords: fetal hydronephrosis; prognosis; three-dimensional ultrasound
Year: 2015 PMID: 25667626 PMCID: PMC4316903 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2015.2168
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1Ultrasound images showing (A) kidney volume V1 and (B) dilated renal pelvis volume V2. The renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume, (V1−V2)/V1 = (25.671–2.109)/25.671 = 0.92.
Figure 2Ultrasound images of different pathological presentations of fetal hydronephrosis. (A) Pyelo-ureteral junction stricture showing pyelectasis. (B) Vesicoureteral reflux showing pelviureteric expansion. (C) Posterior urethral valves showing the typical keyhole sign. (D) Ureterocele showing bladder cyst. (E) Anterior urethral valves showing urethral expansion.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of each indicator and hydronephrosis outcome.
| Variables | β | SE | Wald | P-value | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unilateral/bilateral hydronephrosis | 0.91 | 0.43 | 4.60 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 2.50 (1.08–5.76) |
| HI | 0.51 | 2.68 | 0.04 | 1.00 | 0.85 | 1.67 (0.01–318.09) |
| SFU grade | 0.12 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 1.00 | 0.78 | 1.13 (0.49–2.59) |
| APD | 1.06 | 0.54 | 3.91 | 1.00 | 0.05 | 2.89 (1.01–8.28) |
| Thickness of the renal parenchyma | 0.37 | 1.63 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 1.44 (0.06–34.98) |
| Renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume | −9.25 | 2.88 | 10.29 | 1.00 | <0.01 | 0.00 (0.00–0.03) |
| Constant | 2.20 | 3.44 | 0.41 | 1.00 | 0.52 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HI, hydronephrosis index; SFU, Society of Fetal Urology; APD, anteroposterior diameter; SE, standard error; v, degrees of freedom. The constant term represents when exposure dose of risk factors is 0.
Logistic regression analysis of three indicators and hydronephrosis outcome.
| Variables | β | SE | Wald | P-value | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unilateral/bilateral hydronephrosis | 0.82 | 0.41 | 4.09 | 1.00 | 0.04 | 2.27 (1.03–5.04) |
| APD | 1.05 | 0.49 | 4.53 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 2.85 (1.09–7.48) |
| Renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume | −8.96 | 2.37 | 14.32 | 1.00 | <0.01 | 0.00 (0.00–0.01) |
| Constant | 3.79 | 2.31 | 1.64 | 1.00 | 0.20 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; APD, anteroposterior diameter; SE, standard error; v, degrees of freedom.
Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of each indicator and fetal hydronephrosis outcome.
| Variables | Area under the curve (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Unilateral/bilateral hydronephrosis | 0.57 (0.47–0.67) | 0.156 |
| HI | 0.71 (0.62–0.79) | <0.001 |
| SFU grade | 0.70 (0.62–0.79) | <0.001 |
| APD | 0.77 (0.69–0.85) | <0.001 |
| Thickness of renal parenchyma | 0.66 (0.57–0.75) | 0.001 |
| Renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume | 0.80 (0.72–0.87) | <0.001 |
CI, confidence intervals; HI, hydronephrosis index; SFU, Society of Fetal Urology; APD, anteroposterior diameter.
Best predictive cutoff values of each single indicator.
| Indicators | Best predictive cutoff value | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Youden index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HI | 0.69 | 82.98 | 51.26 | 0.34 |
| SFU grade | 2.00 | 69.52 | 57.05 | 0.27 |
| APD | 1.35 | 82.98 | 57.98 | 0.41 |
| Thickness of renal parenchyma | 0.50 | 72.34 | 52.94 | 0.25 |
| Renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume | 0.81 | 85.11 | 62.18 | 0.47 |
HI, hydronephrosis index; SFU, Society of Fetal Urology; APD, anteroposterior diameter.
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristic curves for the prediction of fetal hydronephrosis outcome. (A) Single indicator curve showing all the indices with the exception of lateral. a, Unilateral/bilateral hydronephrosis; b, hydronephrosis index; c, Society of Fetal Urology grade; d, pelvic APD; e, renal parenchymal thickness; f, renal parenchymal/kidney volume value; g, reference line. (B) Individual indicator combination curve showing that the efficiency of the combination of three indices is similar to that of the combination of six indices. a, Six indicators; b, pelvic APD + renal parenchymal volume/kidney volume value; c, unilateral/bilateral hydronephrosis + pelvic APD + renal parenchymal/kidney volume value; d, reference line. APD, anteroposterior diameter.
Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the combinations of indicators and hydronephrosis outcome.
| Variables | Area under the curve (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Combination of six indicators | 0.85 (0.78–0.91) | <0.001 |
| Unilateral/bilateral hydronephrosis + APD + renal parenchymal/kidney volume | 0.84 (0.78–0.91) | <0.001 |
| APD + renal parenchymal/kidney volume | 0.82 (0.76–0.89) | <0.001 |
CI, confidence interval; APD, anteroposterior diameter.