Comparison of ct angiography with mr angiography in the preoperative assessment of living kidney donors

Transplantation

Volumn 86, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1249-1256

  Gluecker, Thomas M ^a   Mayr, Michael ^a   Schwarz, Jochen ^a   Bilecen, Deniz ^a   Voegele, Thomas ^a   Steiger, Juerg ^a   Bachmann, Alexander ^a   Bongartz, Georg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Computer tomography; MRI; Renal transplantation

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOBUTROL; GADOLINIUM; IOPROMIDE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY DONOR; KIDNEY VEIN; LIVING DONOR; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; NEPHRECTOMY; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RENAL ARTERY; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; ANGIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DOSE RESPONSE; KIDNEY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOGRAPHY; VASCULARIZATION;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOGRAPHY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; HUMANS; KIDNEY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; LIVING DONORS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RENAL ARTERY; RENAL VEINS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 58149149954     PISSN: 00411337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181890810     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Hosteter TH, Lising M. National kidney disease education program. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14 (Supp): S114.
2. Cecka JM. The UNOS scientific renal transplant registry: Ten years of kidney transplants. Clin Transplant 1997; 1.
3. Cecka JM. The UNOS renal transplant registry. Clin Transpl 2001; 1.
4. Asderakis A, Augustine T, Dyer P, et al. Pre-emptive kidney transplantation: The attractive alternative. Nephrol Dail Transplant 1998; 13: 1799.
5. Terasaki PL, Cecka JM, Gjertson DW, et al. High survival rates of kidney transplants from spousal and living unrelated donors. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 333.
6. Ratner LE, Ciseck LJ, Moore RG, et al. Laparoscopic live donor ne-phrectomy. Transplantation 1995; 60: 1047.
7. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Schulam PG, et al. Comparison of laparo-scopic live donor nephrectomy versus the standard approach. Transplant Proc 1997; 29: 138.
8. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Sroka M, et al. Laparoscopic assisted live donor nephrectomy: A comparison with the open approach. Transplantation 1997; 63: 229.
9. Nicholson ML, Bradley JA. Renal transplantation from living donors: Should be seriously considered to help overcome the shortfall in organs. BMJ 1999; 318: 409.
10. Lind MY, Ijzermans JNM, Bonjer HJ. Open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in renal transplantation. BJU Int 2002; 89: 162.
11. Bachmann A, Wolff A, Ruszat R, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy: A retrospective, non-randomized comparison of early complications, donor and recipient outcome with the standard open approach. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 90.
12. Bachmann A, Wolff T, Giannini O, et al. How painful is donor ne-phrectomy? Retrospective analysis of early pain and pain management in open versus laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy. Transplantation 2006; 81: 1735.
13. Leventhal JR, Deeick RK, Joehl RJ, et al. Laparoscopic live donor ne-phrectomy: Is it safe? Transplantation 2000; 70: 602.
14. Anderson MH, Mathisen L, Oyen O, et al. Postoperative pain and convalescence in living kidney donors - Laparoscopic versus open donor nephrectomy: A randomized trial. Am J Transplant 2006; 6: 1438.
15. Dahm F, Weber M, MullerB, et al. Open and laparoscopic living donor nephrectomyinSwitzerland:Aretrospective assessmentofclinical outcomes and motivation to donate. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21: 2563.
16. Reimer J, Rensing A, Haasen C, et al. The impact of living-related kidney transplantation on the donor's life. Transplantation 2006; 81: 1268.
17. Ratner LE, Kavoussi LR, Chavin KD, et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Technical considerations and allograft vascular length. Transplantation 1998; 65: 1657.
18. Derauf B, Goldberg ME. Angiographic assessment of potential renal transplant donors. Radiol Clin North Am 1987; 25: 261.
19. Schaffer D, Sahyoun AI, Madras PN. Two hundred and one consecutive living-donor nephrectomies. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 426.
20. Shokeir AA, el-Daisty TA, Nabeeh A, et al. Digital subtraction angiog-raphy in potential live-kidney donors: A study of 1000 cases. Abdom Imaging 1994; 19: 461.
21. Kawamoto S, Montgomery RA, Lawler LP, et al. Multidetector CT angiography for preoperative evaluation of living laparoscopic kidney donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1633.
22. Alfrey EJ, Rubin GD, Kuo PC, et al. The use of spiral computed tomography in the evaluation of living donors for kidney transplantation. Transplantation 1995; 59: 643.
23. Low RN, Martinez AG, Steinberg SM, et al. Potential renal transplant donors: Evaluation with gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and MR urography. Radiology 1998; 207: 165.
24. Rubin GD, Alfrey EJ, Dake MD. Assessment of living renal donors with spiral CT. Radiology 1995; 195: 457.
25. Cochran ST, Krasny RM, Danovitch GM. Helical CT angiography for examination of living renal donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 1569.
26. Platt JF, Ellis JH, Korobkin M, et al. Helical CT evaluation of potential kidney donors: Findingsin 154 subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169: 1325.
27. Smith PA, Ratner LE, Lynch FC, et al. Role of CT angiography in the preoperative evaluation for laparoscopic nephrectomy. Radiographics 1998; 18: 589.
28. Pozniak MA, Balison DJ, Lee FT Jr, et al. CT angiography of potential renal tranplant donors. Radiographics 1998; 18: 565.
29. RydbergJ, Kopecky KK, TannM. Evaluationof prospective living renal donors for laparoscopic nephrectomy with multislice CT: The marriage of minimally invasive imaging with minimally invasive surgery. Radiographics 2001; 21: S223.
30. Hussein SH, Kock MCJ, Ifzermans JNM, et al. MR imaging: A "one-stop Shop" modality for preoperative evaluation of potential living kidney donors. Radiographics 2003; 23: 505.
31. Giessing M, Kroencke TJ, Taupitz M, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance angiography versus conventional digital subtraction angiography: Which modality is superior in evaluating living kidney donors? Transplantation 2003; 76: 1000.
32. Subramanian M, Mizzi A, Roditi G. Magnetic resonance angiography in potential live renal donors: A joint radiological and surgical evaluation. Clin Radiol 2004; 59: 335.
33. Ames SA, Krol M, Nettar K, et al. Pre-donation assessment of kidneys by magnetic resonance angiography and venography: Accuracy and impact on outcome. Am J Tansplant 2005; 5: 1528.
34. Kock MC, Ilzermans JNM, Visser K, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR an-giography and digital-subtraction angiography in living renal donors: Diagnostic agreement, impact on decision making, and costs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 448.
35. Hodgson DJ, Jan W, Rankin S, et al. Magnetic resonance renal angiog-raphy and venography: An analysis of 111 consecutive scans before donor nephrectomy. BJU 2006; 97: 584.
36. Kim JK, Park SO, Kim HJ, et al. Living donor kidneys: Usefulness of multi-detector row CT for comprehensive evaluation. Radiology 2003; 229: 869.
37. Lewis GR, Mulcahy K, Brook NR, et al. A prospective study of predictive power of spiral computed tomographic angiography for defining renal vascular anatomy before live-donor nephrectomy. BJU 2004; 94: 1077.
38. KawamotoS,Montgomery RA, Lawler LP,etal. Multi-detector row CT evaluation of living renal donors prior to laparoscopic nephrectomy. Radiographics 2004; 24: 453.
39. El-Diasty TA, Shokeir AA, El-Ghar ME, et al. Contrast enhanced spiral tomography in live kidney donors: A single session for anatomical and functional assessment. J Urol 2004; 171: 31.
40. Holdon A, Smith A, Dukes P, et al. Assessment of 100 live potential renal donors for laparoscopic nephrectomy with multi-detector row helical CT. Radiology 2005; 237: 973.
41. Kawamoto S, Lawler LP, Fishman EK. Evaluation of the renal venous system on late arterial and venous phase images with MDCT angiogra-phy in potential living laparoscopic renal donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 539.
42. Hänninen EL, Denecke T, Stelter L, et al. Preoperative evaluation of living kidney donors using multirow detector computed tomography: Comparison with digital subtraction angiography and intraoperative findings. Transplant Int 2005; 18: 1134.
43. Rastogi N, Sahani DV, Blake MA, et al. Evaluation of living renal donors: Accuracy of three-dimensional 16-section CT. Radiology 2006; 240: 136.
44. Raman SS, Pojchamarnwiputh S, Muangsomboon K, et al. Utility of 16-MDCT angiography for comprehensive preoperative vascular evaluation of laparoscopic renal donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 1630.
45. Halpern EJ, Mitchell DG, Wechsler RJ, et al. Preoperative evaluation of living renal donors: Comparison of CT angiography and MR angiog-raphy. Radiology 2000; 216: 434.
46. Rankin SC, Jan W, Koffman CG. Noninvasive imaging of living related kidney donors: Evaluation with CT angiography and gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 349.
47. Bhatti AA, Chugtai A, Haslam P, et al. Prospective study comparing three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the renal vascular anatomy in potential living renal donors. BJU 2005; 96: 1105.
48. Fleiss JL, CohenJ. The equivalenceofweighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Measure 1973; 33: 613.
49. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions [ed. 2]. New York, John Wiley 1981, pp. 38.
50. Barry JM. Living donor nephrectomy. J Urol 2004; 171: 61.
51. Cecka JM. The UNOS transplant registry. In: Cecka JM, Terakasi PI, eds. Clinical transplant 2002. Los Angeles, UCLA Immunogenetics Center 2003.
52. Handschin AE, Weber M, Demartines N, et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Br J Surg 2003; 90: 1323.
53. Pollak R, Prusak BF, Mozes MF. Anatomic abnormalities of cadaver kidneys procured for purposes of transplantation. Am Surg 1986; 52: 233.
54. Flowers JL, Jacobs S, Cho E. Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy. Ann Surg 1997; 226: 483.
55. Janoff DM, Davol P, Hazzard J, et al. Computerized tomography with 3-dimensional reconstruction for the evaluation of renal size and arterial anatomy in the living kidney donor. J Urol 2004; 171: 27.
56. KadirS. Angiographyofthe kidneys. In: Kadir S, ed. Diagnostic angiog-raphy. Philadelphia, PA, Saunders 1986, p 445.
57. Strang AM, Lockhart NE, Kenney PJ, et al. Computerized tomographic angiography for renal donor evaluation leadstoahigher exclusion rate. J Urol 2007; 177: 1826.
58. Silverman SG, Akbar SA, Mortele KJ, et al. Multi-detector row CT urography of normal urinary collecting system: Furosemide versus saline as adjunct to contrast medium. Radiology 2006; 240: 749.
59. Namasivayam S, Kalra MK, Waldrop SM, et al. Multidetector row CT angiography of living related renal donors: Is there a need for venous phase imaging? Eur Radiol 2006; 59: 442.