| Literature DB >> 33976918 |
Zhi-Yang Low1, Siân E Allen1, Vimoshan Arumuham1, Laura May Davis2, Clare Allen3, Jamshed Bomanji2, R Daron Smith1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unilateral renal function often deteriorates with chronic ureteric obstruction. Our objectives were to determine the change in relative renal function (RRF) by MAG3 renography after intervention for ureteric obstruction, and to identify clinical/epidemiological factors which influence long-term outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: MAG3; improvement; obstruction; relative; renal function
Year: 2021 PMID: 33976918 PMCID: PMC8097660 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2021.0274.R1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cent European J Urol ISSN: 2080-4806
Figure 1MAG3 renograms in a patient with a background of ketamine bladder with cystectomy and ileocolic neobladder. The image on the left is the initial MAG3 renogram which showed a scarred left kidney with reduced function and ‘sluggish’ drainage pattern with a normal functioning and draining right kidney. The image on the right is a repeat renogram at 26 months demonstrating ongoing poor function of the left kidney with no significant change in its relative renal function despite interim relief of obstruction by ureteric reimplantation.
Patient demographics, type of obstructive uropathy and intervention received
| N | Marginal percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Age | ||
| Pathology | ||
| Type of intervention |
SWL – shock wave lithotripsy; TURP – transurethral resection of the prostate; UPJ – ureteropelvic junction
Figure 2Flow chart detailing inclusion and exclusion of patients.
RRF – relative renal function
Relative renal function RRF before and after intervention, stratified by preoperative RRF
| Preoperative RRF category | N | Mean preoperative RRF (%) | Mean postoperative RRF (%) | P value of difference (2-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal RRF (43–57%) | 64 | 46.6 | 46.2 | 0.53 |
| Mild impairment (29–42%) | 86 | 36.4 | 34.6 | 0.03 |
| Moderate impairment (15–28%) | 45 | 21.7 | 23.3 | 0.27 |
| Severe impairment (<15%) | 30 | 8.45 | 11.06 | 0.09 |
RRF – relative renal function
Figure 3Mean preoperative vs postoperative RRF stratified into categories; widths of lines are proportional to number of patients. Dotted lines show the overall trend within each category.
RRF – relative renal function
Degree of improvement in RRF category post-intervention
| Degree of improvement | N | Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improved by two categories | 2 | 0.9% | ||
| Improved by one category | 28 | 12.3% | } | |
| Remained in original category | 167 | 73.2% | 96.9% | |
| Deteriorated by one category | 26 | 11.4% | ||
| Deteriorated by two categories | 5 | 2.2% | ||
RRF – relative renal function
Figure 4Preoperative vs. postoperative log-transformed RRF linear regression analysis.
RRF – relative renal function