Split renal function in patients with suspected renal artery stenosis: a comparison between gamma camera renography and two methods of measurement with computed tomography

Björkman, H; Eklöf, Hampus; Wadström, Jonas; Andersson, Lars-Göran; Nyman, Rickard; Magnusson, Anders

doi:10.1080/02841850500406787

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The previous reports on estimation of SRF using CT data sets revealed a significant correlation between the SRF estimated by CT and that by scintigraphy data (r=0.43-0.97) (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). This is in accordance with our result (r=0.93).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Several previous reports have compared split renal function (SRF) estimated by CT data sets with SRF estimated by renal scintigraphy (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16). According to these reports, there is a significant relationship between SRFs estimated by the two methods (r=0.43-0.97).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…(18). Several studies have been based on this theory (10)(11)(12)14). The number of voxels of a kidney is proportional to the kidney volume; therefore, the attenuation capacity of the CM is assumed to be represented by the product of the volume and the mean contrast enhancement, which is referred to as the modified enhancing renal volume in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is in accordance with our result (r=0.93). In the previous reports, the degree of renal enhancement was taken into consideration for the estimation of SRF (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). According to Frennby et al, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of a kidney was assumed to be proportional to the amount of contrast medium that had accumulated in that kidney a few minutes after bolus injection, and directly proportional to the attenuation capacity of the contrast medium (CM) in that kidney, with the attenuation capacity calculated by subtracting the number of HUs of all the voxels of the kidney before CM injection from that after CM injection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study we used a newly developed software that estimates the kidney volume within several seconds, and evaluated the relationship between renal function and the renal volume thus estimated. Furthermore, we also evaluated a method for assessment of SRF by CT data using the degree of renal enhancement and renal volume, as presented in previous reports (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Rapid estimation of split renal function in kidney donors using software developed for computed tomographic renal volumetry

Kato

Kamishima

Morita

et al. 2011

European Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid Estimation of Split Renal Function in Kidney Donors using software developed for Computed Tomographic Renal Volumetry AbstractPurpose: To evaluate the speed and precision of split renal volume(SRV) measurement (SRV), which is the ratio of unilateral renal volume to bilateral renal volume, using a newly developed software for computed tomographic (CT) volumetry and to investigate the usefulness of SRV for the estimation of split renal function (SRF) in kidney donors.Method: Both dynamic CT and renal scintigraphy in 28 adult potential living renal donors were the subjects of this study. We calculated SRV using the newly developed volumetric software built into a PACS viewer (n-SRV), and compared it with SRV calculated using a conventional workstation, ZIOSOFT (z-SRV). The correlation with split renal function (SRF) using 99m Tc-DMSA scintigraphy was also investigated.Results: The time required for volumetry of bilateral kidneys with the newly developed software (16.7 ± 3.9sec) was significantly shorter than that of the workstation (102.6 ± 38.9 sec, p<0.0001). The results of n-SRV (49.7 ± 4.0%) were highly consistent with those of z-SRV (49.9 ± 3.6%), with a mean discrepancy of 0.12 ± 0.84%. The SRF also agreed well with the n-SRV, with a mean discrepancy of 0.25 ± 1.65%. The dominant side determined by SRF and n-SRV showed agreement in 26 of 28 cases (92.9%).Conclusion: The newly developed software for CT volumetry was more rapid than the conventional workstation volumetry and just as accurate, and was suggested to be useful for the estimation of SRF and thus the dominant side in kidney donors.

show abstract