Go Back
This abstract was viewed 107 times

Original research article


Renal Collecting System Anatomy in Living Kidney Donors by Computed Tomographic Urography: Protocol Accuracy Compared to Intravenous Pyelographic and Surgical Findings

Dr. Reza Piri
Departments of RadiologyDepartment of Urology and TransplantationStudent’s Research CommitteeLiver and Gastrointestinal Diseases Research CenterMedical Philosophy and History Research CentreCardiovascular Research Center,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences,Tabriz, IranDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CTDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FloridaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of California Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA
Date of Submission: 23-Oct-2015, Date of Acceptance: 24-Dec-2015, Date of Web Publication: 27-Jan-2016.
Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Mohammad Kazem Tarzamni,Nariman Nezami1,Afshar Zomorrodi,Samad Fathi-Noroozlou,Reza Piri,Mo

Student’s Research Committee,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Daneshgah Street, Tabriz,Eastern Azerbaijan, Iran.
E-mail: dr.reza.piri@gmail.com

Corresponding Author:
Corresponding Author

Mohammad Kazem Tarzamni,Nariman Nezami1,Afshar Zomorrodi,Samad Fathi-Noroozlou,Reza Piri,Mo

Student’s Research Committee,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Daneshgah Street, Tabriz,Eastern Azerbaijan, Iran.
E-mail: dr.reza.piri@gmail.com

DOI: 10.4103/2156-7514.175079 Facebook Twitter Google Linkedin

ABSTRACT


Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of triple‑bolus computed tomography urography (CTU) as a surrogate of intravenous pyelography (IVP) for determining the anatomy of the urinary collecting system in living kidney donors. Materials and Methods: In an analytic descriptive cross‑sectional study, 36 healthy kidney donors were recruited during 12 months. Preoperative IVP and CTU were utilized to evaluate kidneys’ anatomy; major and minor calyces and variation were used as anatomical indices to compare the accuracy of CTU and IVP; the images were then compared to surgical findings. Results: Thirty‑six kidney donors (92% male; mean age: 28 ± 6 years) were enrolled in this study. The kappa coefficient value was significant and almost perfect for the CTU and IVP findings in detecting the pattern of calyces (kappa coefficient 0.92, asymptotic 95% confidence interval 0.86–0.97). Anatomic variations or anomalies of the urinary collecting system included the bifid pelvis (5.6%), duplication (8.3%), and extra‑renal pelvis (2.8%). Both the sensitivity and specificity of CTU in the detection of the anatomy and variations were 100%; the sensitivity and specificity of IVP were 83.3% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions: The triple‑bolus preoperative CTU can be considered an alternative to IVP for assessing the anatomy of the urinary collecting system
Keywords: Anatomy, computed tomography urography, donor, intravenous pyelography, kidney transplant

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.