CT angiography evaluation of living renal donors: Comparison of four reconstruction methods

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 183, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 471-477

  Kim, Jeong Kon ^a   Kim, Jin Hyoung ^a   Bae, Sang Jin ^b   Cho, Kyoung Sik ^a  

^a University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Inje University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; IOPAMIDOL;

ADULT; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; KIDNEY ANGIOGRAPHY; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; KIDNEY VEIN; LIVING DONOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NEPHRECTOMY; ORGAN DONOR; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RENAL ARTERY;

EID: 3242745906     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.183.2.1830471     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Rubin GD, Alfrey EJ, Dake MD, et al. Assessment of living renal donors with spiral CT. Radiology 1995;195:457-462
2. Platt JF, Ellis JH, Korobkin M, Reige KA, Konnak JW, Leichtman AB. Potential renal donors: comparison of conventional imaging with helical CT. Radiology 1996;198:419-423
3. Cochran ST, Krasny RM, Danovitch GM, et al. Helical CT angiography for examination of living renal donors. AJR 1997;168:1569-1573
4. Pozniak MA, Balison DJ, Lee Fr Jr, Tambeaux RH, Uehling DT, Moon TD. CT angiography of potential renal transplant donors. RadioGraphics 1998;18:565-587
5. El Fettouh HA, Herts BR, Nimeh T, et al. Prospective comparison of 3-dimensional volume rendered computerized tomography and conventional renal arteriography for surgical planning in patients undergoing laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2003;170:57-60
6. Werner W, Kaiser A, Sperschneider H, Poschel K, Hans R, Schubert J. Preoperative evaluation of living renal donors with 3-D CT angiography. Transplant Proc 2002;34:2207-2208
7. Lee SS, Kim TK, Ha HK, et al. Hepatic arteries in potential donors for living related liver transplantation: evaluation with multi-detector row CT angiography. Radiology 2003;227:391-399.
8. Byun JH, Kim TK, Lee SS, et al. Evaluation of the hepatic artery in potential donors for living donor liver transplantation by computed tomography angiography using multidetector-row computed tomography: comparison of volume rendering and maximum intensity projection techniques. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27:125-131
9. Heath DG, Soyer PA, Kuszyk BS, et al. Three-dimensional spiral CT during arterial portography: comparison of three rendering techniques. RadioGraphics 1995;15:1001-1011
10. Choyke PL, Yim P, Marcos H, Ho VB, Mullick R, Summers RM. Hepatic MR angiography: a multi-observer comparison of visualization methods. AJR 2001;176:465-470
11. Sato Y, Shiraga N, Nakajima S, Tamura S, Kikinis R. Local maximum intensity projection (LMIP): a new rendering method for vascular visualization. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998;22:912-917
12. Addis KA, Hopper KD, Iyriboz TA, et al. CT angiography: in vitro comparison of five reconstruction methods. AJR 2001;177:1171-1176
13. Johnson PT, Halpern EJ, Kuszyk BS, et al. Renal artery stenosis: CT angiography-comparison of real-time volume-rendering and maximum intensity projection algorithms. Radiology 1999;211:337-343
14. Berg MH, Manninen HI, Vanninen RL, Vainio PA, Soimakallio S. Assessment of renal artery stenosis with CT angiography: usefulness of multiplanar reformation, quantitative stenosis measurements, and densitometric analysis of renal parenchymal enhancement as adjuncts to MIP film reading. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998;22:533-540
15. Rubin GD, Dake MD, Napel S, et al. Spiral CT of renal artery stenosis: comparison of three-dimensional rendering techniques. Radiology 1994;190:181-189
16. Napel S, Rubin GD, Jeffrey RB Jr. STS MIP: a new reconstruction technique for CT of the chest. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17:832-838
17. Remy-Jardin M, Remy J, Artaud D, Deschildre F, Duhamel A. Diffuse infiltrative lung disease: clinical value of sliding-thin-slab maximum intensity projection CT scans in the detection of mild micronodular patterns. Radiology 1996;200:333-339
18. Bhalla M, Naidich DP, McGuinness G, Gruden JF, Leitman BS, McCauley DI. Diffuse lung disease: assessment with helical CT-preliminary observations of the role of maximum and minimum intensity projection images. Radiology 1996;200:341-347
19. Kirchgeorg MA, Prokop M. Increasing spiral CT benefits with postprocessing applications. Eur J Radiol 1998;28:39-54
20. Richenberg JL, Hansell DM. Image processing and spiral CT of the thorax. Br J Radiol 1998;71:708-716
21. Manu MA, Tanabe K, Ishikawa N, et al. Comparative study of helical of scan angiography and conventional arteriography for evaluation of living renal transplant donors. Transplant Proc 1999;31:2883-2884
22. Halpern EJ, Mitchell DG, Wechsler RJ, Outwater EK, Moritz MJ, Wilson GA. Preoperative evaluation of living renal donors: comparison of CT angiography and MR angiography. Radiology 2000;216:434-439
23. Rankin SC, Jan W, Koffman CG. Noninvasive imaging of living related kidney donors: evaluation with CT angiography and gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. AJR 2001;177:349-355
24. Dachman AH, Newmark GM, Mitchell MT, Woodle ES. Helical CT examination of potential kidney donors. AJR 1998;171:193-200
25. Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Hosch WP, et al. Preoperative evaluation of living renal donors: value of contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance angiography and comparison of three rendering algorithms. Eur Radiol 2003;13:794-801
26. Hong KC, Freeny PC. Pancreaticoduodenal arcades and dorsal pancreatic artery: comparison of CT angiography with three-dimensional volume rendering, maximum intensity projection, and shaded-surface display. AJR 1999;172:925-931
27. Johnson PT, Heath DG, Kuszyk BS, Fishman EK. CT angiography with volume rendering: advantages and applications in splanchnic vascular imaging. Radiology 1996;200:564-568
28. Kim JK, Park SY, Kim HJ, et al. Living donor kidneys: usefulness of multi-detector row CT for comprehensive evaluation. Radiology 2003;229:869-876