What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract?

Radiology

Volumn 250, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 309-323

  Silverman, Stuart G ^a   Leyendecker, John R ^b   Amis Jr , E Stephen ^c  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRAVENOUS UROGRAPHY; KIDNEY FAILURE; KIDNEY TUMOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSTRUCTIVE UROPATHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; TECHNIQUE; URINARY TRACT; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; URINARY TRACT INJURY; UROGRAPHY; UROLITHIASIS; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; URINARY TRACT DISEASE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; IOHEXOL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RADIATION DOSAGE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UROGRAPHY; UROLOGIC DISEASES;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; DRUG DERIVATIVE; GADOLINIUM; IOHEXOL; IOPROMIDE;

EID: 61749093143     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2502080534     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. Skrepetis K, Siafakas I, Lykourinas M. Evolution of retrograde pyelography and excretory urography in the early 20th century. J Endourol 2001;15:691-696.
2. Mushlin AI, Thornbury JR. Intravenous pyelography: the case against its routine use. Ann Intern Med 1989;111:58-70.
3. Amis ES Jr. Epitaph for the urogram. Radiology 1999;213:639-640.
4. Bosniak MA. The small (less than or equal to 3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controversies. Radiology 1991;179:307-317.
5. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 2008;249:16-31.
6. Curry NS, Schabel SI, Betsill WL Jr. Small renal neoplasms: diagnostic imaging, pathologic features, and clincal course. Radiology 1986;158:113-117.
7. Curry NS. Small renal masses (lesions smaller than 3 cm): imaging evaluation and management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;164:333-362.
8. Einstein DM, Herts BR, Weaver R, Obu-chowski N, Zepp R, Singer A. Evaluation of renal masses detected by excretory urography: cost-effectiveness of sonography versus CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:371-375.
9. Levine E, Huntrakoon M, Wetzel LH. Small renal neoplasms: clinical, pathologic, and imaging features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;153:69-73.
10. Silverman SG, Lee BY, Seltzer SE, Bloom DA, Corless CL, Adams DF. Small (< or = 3 cm) renal masses: correlation of spiral CT features and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:397-603.
11. Zagoria RJ. Imaging of small renal masses: a medical success story. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:945-95.
12. Fielding JR, Silverman SG, Samuel S, Zou KH, Loughlin KR. Unenhanced helical CT of ureteral stones: a replacement for excretory urography in planning treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1051-1053.
13. Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995;194:789-794.
14. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:97-101.
15. Sourtzis S, Thibeau JF, Damry N, Raslan A, Vandendris M, Bellemans M. Radiologic investigation of renal colic: unenhanced helical CT compared with excretory urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1491-1494.
16. Cass AS, Vieira J. Comparison of IVP and CT findings in patients with suspected severe renal injury. Urology 1987;29:484-487.
17. Goldstein AS, Sclafani SJ, Kupferstein NH, et al. The diagnostic superiority of computerized tomography. J Trauma 1985;25:938-946.
18. Herschorn S, Radomski SB, Shoskes DA, Mahoney J, Hirshberg E, Klotz L. Evaluation and treatment of blunt renal trauma. J Urol 1991;146:274-276.
19. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Ernst RD, Goldman SM, Raval B, Fishman EK. Renal inflammatory disease: the current role of CT. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1997;38:369-415.
20. Choyke PL, Bluth EI, Bush WH Jr, et al. Radiologic investigation of patients with hematuria. American College of Radiology, ACR Appropriateness Criteria, 200S. http://www. guideline, gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc-id= 8279&nbr=4611&ss=6&xl=999. Accessed March 13, 2008.
21. Grossfeld GD, Litwin MS, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Evaluation of asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in adults: the American Urological Association best practice policy. II. Patient evaluation, cytology, voided markers, imaging, cystoscopy, nephrology evaluation, and follow-up. Urology 2001;57:604-610.
22. Joffe SA, Servaes S, Okon S, Horowitz M. Multi-detector row CT urography in the evaluation of hematuria. RadioGraphics 2003;23:1441-1455.
23. Townsend B, Silverman S, Mortele K, Tuncali K, Cohan R. Current practice of CT urography by uroradiologists: a survey of the Society of Uroradiology. J Comput Assist Tomogr (in press).
24. Perlman ES, Rosenfield AT, Wexler JS, Glickman MG. CT urography in the evaluation of urinary tract disease. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1996;20:620-626.
25. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Vrtiska TJ, et al. Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography. Radiology 2001;221:395-403.
26. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology 2002;222:353-360.
27. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Inampudi P, et al. MDCT urography of upper tract urothelial neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1873-1881.
28. Chow LC, Sommer FG. Multidetector CT urography with abdominal compression and three-dimensional reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:849-855.
29. Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ, Hartman RP, McCoUough CH, King BF Jr. CT urography. RadioGraphics2004;24:S35-S54.
30. Akbar SA, Mortele KJ, Baeyens K, Kekelidze M, Silverman SG. Multidetector CT urography: techniques, clinical applications, and pitfalls. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2004;25:41-54.
31. Cohan RH, Sherman LS, Korobkin M, Bass JC, Francis IR. Renal masses: assessment of corticomedullary-phase and nephrographic-phase CT scans. Radiology 1995;196:445-451.
32. McNicholas MM, Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK, et al. Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:1261-1267.
33. McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD, Silverman SG. Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 2002;225:783-790.
34. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, et al. Effectiveness of abdominal compression during helical renal CT. Acad Radiol 2001;8:1100-1106.
35. Heneghan JP, Kim DH, Leder RA, DeLong D, Nelson RC. Compression CT urography: a comparison with IVU in the opacification of the collecting system and ureters. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2001;25:343-347.
36. Caoili EM, Inampudi P, Cohan RH, Ellis JH. Optimization of multi-detector row CT urography: effect of compression, saline administration, and prolongation of acquisition delay. Radiology 2005;235:116-123.
37. Levatter R. Compression during CT urography. Radiology 2002;225:309-310.
38. Kawamoto S, Horton KM, Fishman EK. Opacification of the collecting system and ureters on excretory-phase CT using oral water as contrast medium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:136-140.
39. Silverman SG, Akbar SA, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Bhagwat JG, Seifter JL. Multi-detector row CT urography of normal urinary collecting system: furosemide versus saline as adjunct to contrast medium. Radiology 2006;240:749-755.
40. Sudakoff GS, Dunn DP, Hellman RS, et al. Opacification of the genitourinary collecting system during MDCT urography with enhanced CT digital radiography: nonsaline versus saline bolus. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:122-129.
41. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Wildberger JE, Borchers H, Schmitz-Rode T, Gunther RW. Multi-slice CT urography after diuretic injection: initial results. Rofo 2001;173:176-180.
42. Kemper J, Regier M, Stork A, Adam G, Nolte-Ernsting C. Improved visualization of the urinary tract in multidetector CT urography (MDCTU): analysis of individual acquisition delay and opacification using furo-semide and low-dose test images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:751-757.
43. Sanyal R, Deshmukh A, Singh Sheorain V, Taori K. CT urography: a comparison of strategies for upper urinary tract opacification. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1262-1266.
44. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Klokein K, Silverman SG. CT urography radiation dose using automatic exposure control. Presented at the 48th annual meeting of the Association of Physicists in Medicine, Orlando, Fla, August 1,2006.
45. Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, Silverman SG. Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology 2004;232:126-132.
46. Chai RY, Jhaveri K, Saini S, Hahn PF, Nichols S, Mueller PR. Comprehensive evaluation of patients with haematuria on multi-slice computed tomography scanner: protocol design and preliminary observations. Australas Radiol 2001;45:536-538.
47. Chow LC, Kwan SW, Olcott EW, Sommer G. Split-bolus MDCT urography with synchronous nephrographic and excretory phase enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:314-322.
48. Sudakoff GS, Guralnick M, Langenstroer P, et al. CT urography of urinary diversions with enhanced CT digital radiography: preliminary experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:131-138.
49. Kekelidze M, Dijkshoorn M, Dwarkasing S, Hussain S, Krestin G. Initial experience and perspectives of a low-dose two-phase "triple bolus single scan" multidetector CT urography (MDCTU) protocol [abstr]. Eur Radiol 2006;16(suppl):181.
50. Jinzaki M, McTavish JD, Zou KH, Judy PF, Silverman SG. Evaluation of small (
51. Cowan NC, Turney BW, Taylor NJ, McCarthy CL, Crew JP. Multidetector computed tomography urography for diagnosing upper urinary tract urothelial tumour. BJU Int 2007;99:1363-1370.
52. Kim JK, Park SY, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Cho KS. Bladder cancer: analysis of multi-detector row helical CT enhancement pattern and accuracy in tumor detection and perivesical staging. Radiology 2004;231:725-731.
53. O'Malley ME, Hahn PF, Yoder IC, Gazelle GS, McGovern FJ, Mueller PR. Comparison of excretory phase, helical computed tomography with intravenous urography in patients with painless haematuria. Clin Radiol 2003;38:294-300.
54. Turney BW, WiUatt JM, Nixon D, Crew JP, Cowan NC. Computed tomography urography for diagnosing bladder cancer. BJU Int 2006;98:343-348.
55. Sadow CA, Silverman SG, O'Leary MP, Signorovitch JE. Bladder cancer detection with CT urography in an academic medical center. Radiology 2008;249:193-202.
56. Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Shinmoto H, et al. Detection of bladder tumors with dynamic contrast-enhanced MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:913-918.
57. Park SB, Kim JK, Lee HJ, Choi HJ, Cho KS. Hematuria: portal venous phase multi detector row CT of the bladder-a prospective study. Radiology 2007;245:798-805.
58. Grossfeld GD, Wolf JS Jr, Litwan MS, et al. Asymptomatic microscopic hematuria in adults: summary of the AUA best practice policy recommendations. Am Fam Physician 2001;63:1145-1154.
59. Newhouse JH, Amis ES Jr, Bigongiari LR, et al. Radiologic investigation of patients with hematuria: American College of Radiology-ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 2000;215(suppl):687-691.
60. Mariani AJ, Mariani MC, Macchioni C, Stams UK, Hariharan A, Moriera A. The significance of adult hematuria: 1,000 hematuria evaluations including a risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Urol 1989;141:350-355.
61. Messing EM, Young TB, Hunt VB, Emoto SE, Wehbie JM. The significance of asymptomatic microhematuria in men 50 or more years old: findings of a home screening study using urinary dipsticks. J Urol 1987;137:919-922.
62. Ritchie CD, Bevan EA, Collier SJ. Importance of occult haematuria found at screening. Br Med J ( Clin Res Ed) 1986;292:681-683.
63. Woolhandler S, Pels RJ, Bor DH, Himmelstein DU, Lawrence RS. Dipstick urinalysis screening of asymptomatic adults for urinary tract disorders. I. Hematuria and proteinuria. JAMA 1989;262:1214-1219.
64. Gray Sears CL, Ward JF, Sears ST, Puckett MF, Kane CJ, Amling CL. Prospective com-parison of computerized tomography and excretory urography in the initial evaluation of asymptomatic microhematuria. J Urol 2002;168:2437-2460.
65. Liu W, Mortele KJ, Silverman SG. Inciden talextraurinary findings at MDCT urography in patients with hematuria: prevalence and impact on imaging costs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1051-1056.
66. Sadow CA, Silverman SG. CT urography in patients 40 years old or younger: is it worth it? [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007; 300.
67. Leyendecker JR, Barnes CE, Zagoria RJ. MR urography: techniques and clinical applications. RadioGraphics 2008;28:23-46.
68. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Staatz G, Tacke J, Gunther RW. MR urography today. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:191-209.
69. Chu WC, Lam WW, Chan KW, Yeung CK, Lee KH, Sihoe JD. Dynamic gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance urography for assessing drainage in dilated pelvicalyceal systems with moderate renal function: preliminary results and comparison with diuresis renography. BJU Int 2004;93:830-834.
70. Jones RA, Easley K, Little SB, Scherz H, Kirsch AJ, Grattan-Smith JD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of pediatric hydronephrosis. I. Functional assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1598-1607.
71. McDaniel BB, Jones RA, Scherz H, Kirsch AJ, Little SB, Grattan-Smith JD. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of pediatric hydronephrosis. II. Anatomic and functional assessment of uteropelvic junction obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1608-1614.
72. Scialpi M, Di Maggio A, Midiri M, Loperfido A, Angelelli G, Rotondo A. Small renal masses: assessment of lesion characterization and vascularity on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with fat suppression. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:751-757.
73. Aerts P, Van Hoe L, Bosmans H, Oyen R, Marchal G, Baert AL. Breath-hold MR urography using the HASTE technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:543-545.
74. Regan F, Bohlman ME, Khazan R, Rodriguez R, Schultze-Haakh H. MR urography using HASTE imaging in the assessment of ureteric obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1115-1120.
75. Rothpearl A, Frager D, Subramanian A, et al. MR urography: technique and application. Radiology 1993;194:123-130.
76. Roy C, Saussine C, Jahn C, et al. Evaluation of RARE-MR urography in the assessment of ureterohydronephrosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18:601-608.
77. Sigmund G, Stoever B, Zimmerhackl LB, et al. RARE-MR-urography in the diagnosis of upper urinary tract abnormalities in children. Pediatr Radiol 1991;21:416-420.
78. Colville JA, Killeen RP, Buckley O, et al. Does a full bladder aid upper tract visualization in magnetic resonance urography? Australas Radiol 2007;31:362-364.
79. Hughes J, Jan W, Goodie J, Lund R, Rankin S. MR urography: evaluation of different techniques in non-dilated tracts. Clin Radiol 2002;37:989-994.
80. ElDiastyT, MansourO, FaroukA. Diuretic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography versus intravenous urography for depiction of nondilated urinary tracts. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:133-143.
81. ErgenFB, Hussain HK, Carlos RC, etal. 3D excretory MR urography: improved image quality with intravenous saline and diuretic administration. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;23:783-789.
82. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Bucker A, Adam GB, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced excretory MR urography after low-dose diuretic injection: comparison with conventional excretory urography. Radiology 1998;209:147-137.
83. Szopinski K, Szopinska M, Borowka A, Jakubowski W. Magnetic resonance urography: initial experience of a low-dose Gd-DTPA-enhanced technique. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1138-1164.
84. Verswijvel GA, Oyen RH, Van Poppel HP, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of urologic disease: an all-in-one approach. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1614-1619.
85. Leyendecker JR, Childs DD. Kidneys and MR urography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007;13:373-382, vii.
86. Schindera ST, Merkle EM, Dale BM, DeLong DM, Nelson RC. Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T what is the ultimate gain in signal-to-noise ratio? Acad Radiol 2006;13:1236-1243.
87. Trattnig S, Pinker K, Ba-Ssalamah A, Nobauer-Huhmann IM. The optimal use of contrast agents at high field MRI. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1280-1287.
88. Israel GM, Hindman N, Hecht E, Krinsky G. The use of opposed-phase chemical shift MRI in the diagnosis of renal angiomyolipo-mas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200S;184:1868-1872.
89. Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Radecki PD, Piccoli CW, Mitchell DG. Distinction between benign and malignant adrenal masses: value of Tl-weighted chemical-shift MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:579-583.
90. Outwater EK, Bhatia M, Siegelman ES, Burke MA, Mitchell DG. Lipid in renal clear cell carcinoma: detection on opposed-phase gradient-echo MR images. Radiology 1997;205:103-107.
91. Yoshimitsu K, Honda H, Kuroiwa T, et al. MR detection of cytoplasmic fat in clear cell renal cell carcinoma utilizing chemical shift gradient-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:579-585.
92. O'Malley ME, Soto JA, Yucel EK, Hussain S. MR urography: evaluation of a three-dimensional fast spin-echo technique in patients with hydronephrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:387-392.
93. Tang Y, Yamashita Y, Namimoto T, et al. The value of MR urography that uses HASTE sequences to reveal urinary tract disorders. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1497-1502.
94. Tsubota M, Takahara T, Nitatori T, Hachiya J. Utility of cine MR urography of the urinary tract and comparison with static MR urography. Radiat Med 2004;22:212-217.
95. Hagspiel KD, Butty S, Nandalur KR, et al. Magnetic resonance urography for the assessment of potential renal donors: comparison of the RARE technique with a low-dose gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance urography technique in the absence of pharmacological and mechanical inter vention. Eur Radiol 2005;15:2230-2237.
96. Nolte-Ernsting C, Adam G, Bucker A, Berges S, BjornerudA, GuntherRW. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography: first experimental results with a polymeric gadolinium bloodpool agent. Invest Radiol 1997;32:418-423.
97. Setty BN, Holalkere NS, Sahani DV, Uppot RN, Harisinghani M, Blake MA. State-of-the-art cross-sectional imaging in bladder cancer. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2007;36:83-96.
98. Karabacakoglu A, Karakose S, Ince O, Cobankara OE, Karalezli G. Diagnostic value of diuretic-enhanced excretory MR urography in patients with obstructive uropathy. Eur J Radiol 2004;52:320-327.
99. Jung P, Brauers A, Nolte-Ernsting CA, Jakse G, Gunther RW. Magnetic resonance urography enhanced by gadolinium and diuretics: a comparison with conventional urography in diagnosing the cause of ureteric obstruction. BJU Int 2000;86:960-965.
100. Kocaoglu M, Hica AT, Bulakbasi N, et al. MR urography in pediatric uropathies with dilated urinary tracts. Diagn Interv Radiol 2005;11:225-232.
101. Regan F, Kuszyk B, Bohlman ME, Jackman S. Acute ureteric calculus obstruction: un-enhanced spiral CT versus HASTE MR urography and abdominal radiograph. Br J Radiol 2005;78:506-511.
102. Roy C, Saussine C, Guth S, et al. MR urography in the evaluation of urinary tract obstruction. Abdom Imaging 1998;23:27-34.
103. Shokeir AA, El Diasty T, Eassa W, et al. Diagnosis of noncalcareous hydronephrosis: role of magnetic resonance urography and noncontrast computed tomography. Urology 2004;63:225-229.
104. Zielonko J, Studniarek M, MarkuszewskiM. MR urography of obstructive uropathy: diagnostic value of the method in selected clinical groups. Eur Radiol 2003;13:802-809.
105. Sudah M, Vanninen R, Partanen K, Heino A, Vainio P, Ala-Opas M. MR urography in evaluation of acute flank pain: T2-weighted sequences and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional FLASH compared with urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:105-112.
106. Shokeir AA, El Diasty T, Eassa W, et al. Diagnosis of ureteral obstruction in patients with compromised renal function: the role of noninvasive imaging modalities. J Urol 2004;171:2303-2306.
107. Chahal R, Taylor K, Eardley I, Lloyd SN, Spencer JA. Patients at high risk for upper tract urothelial cancer: evaluation of hydronephrosis using high resolution magnetic resonance urography. J Urol 2005;174: 478-482.
108. Avni EF, Bali MA, Regnault M, et al. MR urography in children. Eur J Radiol 2002;43:154-166.
109. Grattan-Smith JD, Jones RA. MR urography in children. Pediatr Radiol 2006;36:1119-1132.
110. Perez-Brayfield MR, Kirsch AJ, Jones RA, Grattan-Smith JD. A prospective study comparing ultrasound, nuclear scintigraphy and dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of hydronephrosis. JUrol 2003;170:1330-1334.
111. Riccabona M. Pediatric MRU: its potential and its role in the diagnostic work-up of upper urinary tract dilatation in infants and children. World JUrol 2004;22:79-87.
112. Avni FE, Nicaise N, Hall M, et al. The roleof MR imaging for the assessment of complicated duplex kidneys in children: preliminary report. Pediatr Radiol 2001;31:215-223.
113. Borthne A, Nordshus T, Reiseter T, et al. MR urography: the future gold standard in paediatric urogenital imaging? Pediatr Radiol 1999;29:694-701.
114. Riccabona M, Simbrunner J, Ring E, Ruppert-Kohlmayr A, Ebner F, Fotter R. Feasibility of MR urography in neonates and infants with anomalies of the upper urinary tract. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1442-1450.
115. Borthne AS, Pierre-Jerome C, Gjesdal KI, Storaas T, Courivaud F, Eriksen M. Pediatric excretory MR urography: comparative study of enhanced and non-enhanced techniques. Eur Radiol 2003;13:1423-1427.
116. 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.
117. Grenier N, Pariente JL, Trillaud H, Soussotte C, Douws C. Dilatation of the collecting system during pregnancy: physiologic vs obstructive dilatation. Eur Radiol 2000;10:271-279.
118. Roy C, Saussine C, Lebras Y, et al. Assessment of painful ureterohydronephrosis during pregnancy by MR urography. Eur Radiol 1996;6:334-338.
119. Spencer JA, Chahal R, Kelly A, Taylor K, Eardley I, Lloyd SN. Evaluation of painful hydronephrosis in pregnancy: magnetic resonance urographic patterns in physiological dilatation versus calculous obstruction. J Urol 2004;171:236-260.
120. Cohnen M, Brause M, May P, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR urography in the evaluation of renal transplants with urological complications. Clin Nephrol 2002;58:111-117.
121. Dorsam J, Knopp MV, Carl S, et al. Ureteral complications after kidney transplantation: evaluation with functional magnetic resonance urography. Transplant Proc 1997;29:132-133.
122. Low RN, Martinez AG, Steinberg SM, et al. Potential renal transplant donors: evaluation with gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and MR urography. Radiology 1998;207:163-172.
123. Schubert RA, Gockeritz S, Mentzel HJ, Rzanny R, Schubert J, Kaiser WA. Imaging in ureteral complications of renal transplantation: value of static fluid MR urography. Eur Radiol 2000;10:1152-1157.
124. Browne RF, Tuite DJ. Imaging of the renal transplant: comparison of MRI with duplex sonography. Abdom Imaging 2006;31:461-482.
125. Denton ER, Mackenzie A, Greenwell T, Popert R, Rankin SC. Unenhanced helical CT for renal colic: is the radiation dose justifiable? Clin Radiol 1999;54:444-447.
126. Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:272-284.
127. Kemper J, Regier M, Bansmann PM, et al. Multidetector CT urography: experimental analysis of radiation dose reduction in an animal model. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2318-2324.
128. Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1510-1517.
129. Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Frauenfelder T, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the detection of urinary stone disease. Invest Radiol 2007;42:823-829.
130. Gupta KB, Silverman SG, McTavish JD, O'Leary M, Bernazzani J. The impact on diagnostic yield, practice patterns, and cost of using CT urography in the evaluation of hematuria [abstr]. Radiology 2001;221(P):501.
131. Grenier N, Basseau F, Ries M, Tyndal B, Jones R, Moonen C. Functional MRI of the kidney. Abdom Imaging 2003;28:164-175.
132. Grenier N, Pedersen M, Hauger O. Contrast agents for functional and cellular MRI of the kidney. Eur J Radiol 2006;60:341-352.
133. Grobner T. Gadolinium: a specific trigger for the development of nephrogenic fibros-ing dermopathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006;21:1104-1108.
134. Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:461-470.
135. Saab G, Abu-Alfa A. Are patients with moderate renal failure at risk for developing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis? Radiology 2007;244:930-931.
136. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, BeU C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007 AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188:1447-1474.
137. Van Der Molen AJ, Cowan NC, Mueller-Lisse UG, Nolte-Ernsting CC, Takahashi S, Cohan RH. CT urography: definition, indications and techniques-a guideline for clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2008;18:4-17.