New imaging applications in the evaluation of pediatric renal disease

Current Opinion in Pediatrics

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 186-190

  Norton, Karen I ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ALGORITHM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FLANK PAIN; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; KIDNEY DISEASE; KIDNEY MALFORMATION; KIDNEY POLYCYSTIC DISEASE; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION HAZARD; RENAL ARTERY; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEDATION; URINARY TRACT INFECTION;

CHILD; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY CALCULI; KIDNEY DISEASES; KIDNEY DISEASES, CYSTIC; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; RENAL ARTERY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS;

EID: 0037376460     PISSN: 10408703     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00008480-200304000-00008     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Zierler RE: Is duplex scanning the best screening test for renal artery stenosis? Semin Vasc Surg 2001, 14:177-185. A review of the algorithm for evaluation of renovascular hypertension or ischemic nephropathy that stressed the limitations of duplex scanning.
2. Voiculescu A, Hofer M, Hetzel GR, et al.: Noninvasive investigation for renal artery stenosis: contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and color Doppler sonography as compared to digital subtraction angiography. Clin Exp Hypertens 2001, 23:521-531. A controlled, prospective study that compared sensitivity and specificity of MR and color Doppler US using digital subtraction angiography as the standard of reference. Both methods found comparable for stenoses > or = to 60%. Ultrasonography was recommended as a screening modality only.
3. Lee HY, Grant EG: Sonography in renovascular hypertension. J Ultrasound Med 2002, 21:431-441.
4. Huber A, Heuck A, Scheidler J, et al.: Contrast-enhanced MR angiography in patients after kidney transplantation. Eur Radiol 2001, 11:2488-2495.
5. Schoenberg SO, Knopp MV, Londy F, et al.: Morphologic and functional magnetic resonance imaging of renal artery stenosis: a multireader tricenter study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002, 13:158-169. This large multicenter study compared digital subtraction angiography with MR angiography for the detection of renal artery stenosis. Magnetic resonance was found to have better interobserver variability than digital subtraction angiography but some limitations in spatial and temporal resolution. Presented a good technical review of both modalities.
6. Vasbinder GB, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, et al.: Diagnostic tests for renal artery stenosis in patients suspected of having renovascular hypertension: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001, 135:401-411. Computed tomography, contrast angiography, MR angiography, US, captopril renal scintigraphy, and captopril testing for renal artery stenosis were summarized and compared. Computed tomography angiography and gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography were recommended as the "preferred" modalities.
7. Hahn U, Konig CW, Miller S, et al.: Multidetector CT angiography-is it a valuable screening tool to detect significant renal artery stenosis? Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 2001, 173:1086-1092.
8. Rubin GD: Techniques for performing multidetector-row computed tomographic angiography. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2001, 4:2-14.
9. Tang S, Chan TM, Lai KN: Kidney donor evaluation with helical CT angiography. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2002, 17:533-534.
10. Hohenwalter MD, Skowlund CJ, Erickson SJ, et al.: Renal transplant evaluation with MR angiography and MR imaging. Radiographics 2001, 21:1505-1517. Advantages of MR angiography assessment of renal transplants were reviewed and its advantage over conventional angiography was stressed.
11. Jha RC, Korangy SJ, Ascher SM, et al.: MR angiography and preoperative evaluation for laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:1489-1495. Magnetic resonance angiography was compared with laparoscopic surgical results. Magnetic resonance was recommended as a noninvasive alternative for screening potential living renal donors.
12. Keir A, Fowler B, Locken JA, et al.: US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology 2002, 222:109-113. A large, retrospective study that compared US with CT to determine sensitivity of US to detect calculi. Computed tomography was established as the standard for determining size, number, and position of renal calculi.
13. Pummangura N, Kochakarn W, Viseshsindh V, et al.: Unenhanced ultrafast computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Med Assoc Thai 2002, 85:256-262.
14. Heidenreich A, Desgrandschamps F, Terrier F: Modern approach of diagnosis and management of acute flank pain: review of all imaging modalities. Eur Urol 2002, 41:351-362. Plain film, intravenous urography, and unenhanced helical CT were compared. Computed tomography was predicted to become the procedure of choice for evaluating acute flank pain.
15. Strouse PJ, Bates DG, Bloom DA, et al.: Non-contrast thin-section helical CT of urinary tract calculi in children. Pediatr Radiol 2002, 32:326-332. This large retrospective study established the effectiveness of CT for detection of renal calculi in children. The importance of monitoring radiation dose, especially in children, was stressed. Further research was recommended for optimization of CT imaging parameters.
16. Spielmann AL, Heneghan JP, Lee LJ, et al.: Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: a feasibility study of single- and multidetector CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:10058-10062. Compared a phantom study of detection rates of calculi at various low radiation dose parameters. Multislice versus single-slice techniques compared favorably. Low-dose renal stone protocols recommended and clinical studies warranted.
17. Nascimento AB, Mitchell DG, Zhang XM, et al.: Rapid MR imaging detection of renal cysts: age-based standards. Radiology 2001, 221:628-632. The ability of MR to detect renal cysts was compared with US. The increased sensitivity of MR for the detection of cystic lesions suggested that new age-based MR standards must be established for what is normal. Magnetic resonance criteria for autosomal dominant polycystic disease must also be defined.
18. Dranssart M, Cognet F, Mousson C, et al.: MR cholangiography in the evaluation of hepatic and biliary abnormalities in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: study of 93 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002, 26:237-242. A retrospective study established that MR is an excellent modality for screening patients at risk for potential biliary and intrahepatic disease.
19. Gelfand MJ, Parker BR, Kushner DC, et al.: Urinary tract infection. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 2000, 215(suppl):847-854.
20. Bjerklund Johansen TE: Diagnosis and imaging in urinary tract infections. Curr Opin Urol 2002, 12:39-43.
21. Jothilakshmi K, Vijayaraghavan B, Paul S, et al.: Radiological evaluation of the urinary tract in children with urinary infection. Indian J Pediatr 2001, 68:1131-1133.
22. Radmayr C, Klauser A, Pallwein L, et al.: Contrast enhanced reflux sonography in children: a comparison to standard radiological imaging. J Urol 2002, 167:1428-1430.
23. Escape I, Martinez J, Bastart F, et al.: Usefulness of echocystography in the study of vesicoureteral reflux. J Ultrasound Med 2001, 20:145-149.
24. Bhatnagar V, Mitra DK, Agarwala S, et al.: The role of DMSA scans in the evaluation of the correlation between urinary tract infection, vesicoureteric reflux, and renal scarring. Pediatr Surg Int 2002, 18:128-134. Authors stressed the importance of DMSA scanning as the modality of choice for assessment of renal scarring.
25. Staatz G, Rohrmann D, Nolte-Ernsting CC, et al.: Magnetic resonance urography in children: evaluation of suspected ureteral ectopia in duplex systems. J Urol 2001, 166:2346-2350.
26. Riccabona M, Simbrunner J, Ring E, et al.: Feasibility of MR urography in neonates and infants with anomalies of the upper urinary tract. Eur Radiol 2002, 12:1442-1450.
27. Chow L, Sommer FG, Huang J, et al.: Power Doppler imaging and resistance index measurement in the evaluation of acute renal transplant rejection. J Clin Ultrasound 2001, 29:483-490.
28. Buturovic-Ponikvar J, Urbancic A, Kenda RB, et al.: Duplex Doppler follow-up of renal transplant artery stenosis in children. Transplant Proc 2001, 33:3599-601.
29. Buturovic-Ponikvar J, Zupunski A, Urbancic A, et al.: Long-term follow up of renal transplant artery stenosis by Doppler. Transplant Proc 2001, 33:3390-3391.