Is deconvolution applicable to renography?

Nuclear Medicine Communications

Volumn 22, Issue 11, 2001, Pages 1255-1260

  Kuyvenhoven, J D ^a,b   Ham, H ^b   Piepsz, A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b SAINT PIERRE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Deconvolution; Mean transit time; Renography; Validation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; KIDNEY CLEARANCE; KIDNEY FUNCTION; OBSTRUCTIVE UROPATHY; PREDICTION; RENOGRAPHY; RENOVASCULAR DISEASE; RESIDUAL VOLUME; SAMPLING; TECHNIQUE; URINE VOLUME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HUMANS; KIDNEY; NEPHRONS; RADIOISOTOPE RENOGRAPHY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0034753480     PISSN: 01433636     EISSN: 14735628     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00006231-200111000-00014     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Whitfield HN, Britton KE, Hendry WF, Nimmon CC, Wickham JEA. The distinction between obstructive uropathy and nephropathy by radioisotope transit times. Br J Urol 1978; 50: 433-436.
2. Whitfield HN, Britton KE, Nimmon CC, Hendry WF, Wallace DMA, Wickham JEA. Renal transit time measurements in the diagnosis of ureteric obstruction. Br J Urol 1981; 53: 500-503.
3. González A, Vigues F, Puchal R, Franco E, Bartrons R, Ambrosio S. Evaluation of renographic and metabolic parameters in human kidney transplantation. Q J Nucl Med 1997; 41: 42-45.
4. Nakagawa T, Maeda H, Terada N, et al. Clinical value of deconvolution analysis in radionuclide renal study. Radiat Med 1989; 7: 236-242.
5. 99mTc-MAG3 renogram deconvolution analysis as a diagnostic aid in kidney graft monitoring. Transplant Proc 1995; 27: 2221.
6. Piepsz A, Ham HR, Erbsmann F, et al. A co-operative study on the clinical value of dynamic renal scanning with deconvolution analysis. Br J Radiol 1982; 55: 419-433.
7. Russell CD, Japanwalla M, Khan S, Scott JW, Dubovsky EV. Techniques for measuring renal transit time. Eur J Nucl Med 1995; 22: 1372-1378.
8. 3 using factor analysis. Nuklearmedizin 1990; 29: 170-176.
9. Kempi V, Sutton DG. Estimating the diagnostic yields resulting from renography and deconvolution parameters: a logistic regression analysis. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 147-152.
10. Ham HR. Is renography suitable for deconvolution analysis? J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 403-404.
11. Gruenewald SM, Nimmon CC, Nawaz MK, Britton KE. A non-invasive γ-camera technique for the measurement of intrarenal flow distribution in man. Clin Sci 1981; 6: 385-389.
12. Wilkinson SP, Bernardi M, Pearce PC, et al. Validation of ‘transit renography’ for the determination of the intrarenal ditribution of plasma flow: comparison with the microsphere method in the anaesthetized rabbit and pig. Clin Sci Mol Med 1978; 55: 277-283.
13. Szabó Z, Vosberg H, Sondhaus CA, Feinendegen LE. Model identification and estimation of organ-function parameters using radioactive tracers and the impulse-response function. Eur J Nucl Med 1985; 11: 265-274.
14. Chaiwatanarat T, Padhy AK, Bomanji JB, Nimmon CC, Somezoglu K, Britton KE. Validation of renal output efficiency as an objective quantitative parameter in the evaluation of upper urinary tract obstruction. J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 845-848.
15. Puchal R, Pavía J, González A, Ros D. Optimal filtering values in renogram deconvolution. Phys Med Biol 1988; 33: 831-845.
16. Van Huffel S, Vandewalle J, De Roo MC, Willems JL. Reliable and efficient deconvolution technique based on total linear least squares for calculating the renal retention function. Med Biol Eng Comput 1987; 25: 26-33.
17. Carlsen O. Direct deconvolution algorithms based on Laplace transforms in nuclear medicine applications. Nucl Med Commun 2000; 21: 857-868.
18. Rajabi H, Pant GS. Optimal filtration for time-activity curves in nuclear medicine. Nucl Med Commun 2000; 21: 823-828.
19. Whitfield HN, Britton KE, Kelsey Fry I, et al. The obstructed kidney: correlation between renal function and urodynamic assessment. Br J Urol 1997; 49: 615-619.