Shan You1, XianWu Ma2, ChangZhu Zhang2, Qiang Li2, WenWei Shi3, Jing Zhang3, XiaoDong Yuan4. 1. Department of Graduate, Hebei North University, 11 Diamond South Road, High-tech Zone, Zhangjiakou City, Hebei Province, 075000, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Radiology, Qiqihar Chinese Medicine Hospital, 23 Ping An Nan Jie, Tiefeng District, Qigihar City, Heilongjiang Province, 161005, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Radiology, The 309th Hospital of Chinese People`s Liberation Army, 17 Heishanhu Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100091, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Radiology, The 309th Hospital of Chinese People`s Liberation Army, 17 Heishanhu Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100091, People's Republic of China. yuanxiaodongzj@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To present a single-kidney CT-GFR measurement and compare it with the renal dynamic imaging Gates-GFR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with hydronephrosis referred for CT urography and 99mTc-DTPA renal dynamic imaging were prospectively included. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The CT urography protocol included non-contrast, nephrographic, and excretory phase imaging. The total CT-GFR was calculated by dividing the CT number increments of the total urinary system between the nephrographic and excretory phase by the products of iodine concentration in the aorta and the elapsed time, then multiplied by (1- Haematocrit). The total CT-GFR was then split into single-kidney CT-GFR by a left and right kidney proportionality factor. The results were compared with single-kidney Gates-GFR by using paired t-test, correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Paired difference between single-kidney CT-GFR (45.02 ± 13.91) and single-kidney Gates-GFR (51.21 ± 14.76) was 6.19 ± 5.63 ml/min, p<0.001, demonstrating 12.1% systematic underestimation with ±11.03 ml/min (±21.5%) measurement deviation. A good correlation was revealed between both measurements (r=0.87, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The proposed single-kidney CT-GFR correlates and agrees well with the reference standard despite a systematic underestimation, therefore it could be a one-stop-shop for evaluating urinary tract morphology and split renal function. KEY POINTS: • A new CT method can assess split renal function • Only using images from CT urography and the value of haematocrit • A one-stop-shop CT technique without additional radiation dose.
OBJECTIVES: To present a single-kidney CT-GFR measurement and compare it with the renal dynamic imaging Gates-GFR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with hydronephrosis referred for CT urography and 99mTc-DTPA renal dynamic imaging were prospectively included. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. The CT urography protocol included non-contrast, nephrographic, and excretory phase imaging. The total CT-GFR was calculated by dividing the CT number increments of the total urinary system between the nephrographic and excretory phase by the products of iodine concentration in the aorta and the elapsed time, then multiplied by (1- Haematocrit). The total CT-GFR was then split into single-kidney CT-GFR by a left and right kidney proportionality factor. The results were compared with single-kidney Gates-GFR by using paired t-test, correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Paired difference between single-kidney CT-GFR (45.02 ± 13.91) and single-kidney Gates-GFR (51.21 ± 14.76) was 6.19 ± 5.63 ml/min, p<0.001, demonstrating 12.1% systematic underestimation with ±11.03 ml/min (±21.5%) measurement deviation. A good correlation was revealed between both measurements (r=0.87, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The proposed single-kidney CT-GFR correlates and agrees well with the reference standard despite a systematic underestimation, therefore it could be a one-stop-shop for evaluating urinary tract morphology and split renal function. KEY POINTS: • A new CT method can assess split renal function • Only using images from CT urography and the value of haematocrit • A one-stop-shop CT technique without additional radiation dose.
Authors: Nils Hackstein; Julia Bauer; Ekkehard W Hauck; Martin Ludwig; Hans-Joachim Krämer; Wigbert Stefan Rau Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andreas Helck; Wieland H Sommer; Ernst Klotz; Matthias Wessely; Steven Pieter Sourbron; Konstantin Nikolaou; Dirk A Clevert; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Wolf D Illner; Maximilian Reiser; Hans-Christoph Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Syed A Akbar; Koenraad J Mortele; Kemal Tuncali; Jui G Bhagwat; Julian L Seifter Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.105