Study of Role of Magnetic Resonance Urography (MRU) and Comparison with Conventional Radiology in the Diagnosis of Complex Renal Anomalies: A Tertiary Care Centre Experience

Priti Zade, Sharad Khandelwal, Milind Joshi, Sandesh Parelkar, Shyam Borwankar

Opposite Bombay Hospital, Indore, India.

DOI: 10.4236/oju.2012.23020                

Abstract

Anatomical renal anomalies are one of the most commonly occurring renal anomalies. Most of these anomalies require series of investigations for the proper diagnosis. We tried to compare the results of conventional radiological investigations with magnetic resonance urography in the diagnosis of complex renal anomalies. Materials and methods: This was a prospective study done over a period of five years from 2006 to 2011. All the patients with suspected or diagnosed presence of renal anomalies were investigated by ultrasound (USG), Intravenous urography (IVU), micturating cystourethrogram (MCU), magnetic resonance urography (MRU), retrograde urethrography, cystogenitoscopy, renal scans as per the indication in the case. Results: Total sixty three patients were studied over the period. The most common complex renal anomaly diagnosed was duplex system and conventional radiological investigations were useful in the diagnosis of less than 50% patients. Female patients outnumbered male patients in having complex renal anomalies. MRU was diagnostic in most of the patients with such anomalies and excellent mode of investigation for functional and anatomical details. Conclusion: MRU is better than conventional radiological investigations in the diagnosis of complex renal anomalies.

Keywords

Complex Renal Anomalies; Conventional Radiology; Magnetic Resonance Urography

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	C. C. A. Nolte-Ernsting, et al., “MR Uroghraphy Today,” Abdominal Imaging, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2003, pp. 191-209. doi:10.1007/s00261-001-0187-4
[2]	G. A. Verswijvel, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Urological Disease: An All in One Approach,” European Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 10, 2000, pp. 1614-1619. doi:10.1007/s003300000536
[3]	C. C. A. Nolte-Ernsting, et al., “MR Urography: Examination Technique and Clinical Applications,” European Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2001, pp. 355-372. doi:10.1007/s003300000685
[4]	G. Sigmund, et al., “RARE MR Urography in the Diagnosis of Upper Urinary Tract Abnormalities in Children,” Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1991, pp. 416-420. doi:10.1007/BF02026676
[5]	P. Aerts, et al., “Breath Holding MR Urography Using the Haste Technique,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 166, 1996, pp. 543-546.
[6]	F. Regan, et al., “MR Urography Using HASTE Imaging in the Assessment of Ureteric Obstruction,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 167, 1996, pp. 1115-1120.
[7]	A. Rothpearl, et al., “MR Urography: Technique and Application,” Radiology, Vol. 194, No. 1, 1995, pp. 125-130.
[8]	M. E. O’Malley, et al., “MR Urography: Evaluation of the Three Dimensional Fast Spin Echo Technique in Patients with Hydronephrosis,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 168, No. 2, 1997, pp. 387-392.
[9]	M. Tsubota, et al., “Utility of Cine MR Urography of Urinary Tract and Comparison with Static MR Urography,” Radiation Medicine, Vol. 22, 2004, pp. 212-217.
[10]	K. Szopinsky, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Urography: Initial Experience Low Dose GD DTPA Enhanced Technique,” European Radiology, Vol. 10, 2000, pp. 1058-1064.
[11]	J. Hughes, et al., “MR Urography: Evaluation of Different Techniques in Non Dilated Tracts,” Clinical Radiology, Vol. 57, No. 11, 2002, pp. 989-994. doi:10.1053/crad.2002.1070
[12]	T. El Diasty, et al., “Diuretic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Urography versus Intravenous Urography for Dipiction of Non Dilated Urinary Tracts,” Abdominal Imaging, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2003, pp. 135-145. doi:10.1007/s00261-002-0010-x
[13]	F. B. Ergen, et al., “3D Excretory MR Urography: Improved Image Quality with Intravenous Saline and Diuretic Administration,” Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2007, pp. 783-789. doi:10.1002/jmri.20875
[14]	C. C. A. Nolte-Ernsting, et al., “Gadolinium Enhanced Excretory Urography after Low Dose Diuretic Injection: Comparison with Conventional Excretory Urography,” Radiology, Vol. 209, 1998, pp. 147-157.
[15]	A. Karabacakoglu, et al., “Diagnostic Value of Diuretic Enhanced Excretory MR Urography in Patients with Obstructive Uropathy,” European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2004, pp. 320-327. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.10.023
[16]	J. Zielonko, et al., “MR Urography of Obstructive Uropathy: Diagnostic Value of the Method in Selected Clinical Groups,” European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2003, pp. 802-809.
[17]	F. E. Avni, et al., “The Role of MR Imaging for the Assessment of Complicated Duplex Kidneys in Children: Preliminary Report,” Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 31, No. 4, 2001, pp. 215-223. doi:10.1007/s002470100439
[18]	A. Borthne, et al., “MR Urography: The Future Gold Standard in Pediatric Urogenital Imaging?” Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 29, No. 9, 1999, pp. 694-701. doi:10.1007/s002470050677
[19]	J. D. Gratten-Smith, et al., “MR Urography in Children,” Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 36, No. 11, 2006, pp. 1119-1132. doi:10.1007/s00247-006-0222-2
[20]	M. Riccabona, “Pediatric MRU: Its Potential and Its Role in the Diagnostic Work-Up of the Upper Urinary Tract Dilatation in Infants and Children,” World Journal of Urology, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2004, pp. 79-87. doi:10.1007/s00345-004-0406-z
[21]	M. Riccabona, et al., “Feasibility of MR Urography in Neonates and Infants with Abnormalities of the Upper Urinary Tract,” European Radiology, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2002, pp. 1442-1450. doi:10.1007/s00330-001-1180-6
[22]	R. A. Jones, et al., “Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MR Urography in the Evaluation of Pediatric Hydronephrosis. I. Functional Assessment,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 185, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1598-1607. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1540
[23]	W. C. W. Chu, et al., “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 International, Vol. 93, No. 6, 2004, pp. 830-834. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04725.x
[24]	J. Haustein, et al., “Renal Tolerance of Gadolinium DTPA/Dimeglumine in Patients with Chronic Renal Failure,” Investigative Radiology, Vol. 27, 1992, pp. 153-156. doi:10.1097/00004424-199202000-00012
[25]	T. Grobner, “Gadolinium: A Specific Trigger for the Development of Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy and Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis?” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, Vol. 21, No. 4, 2006, pp. 1104-1108. doi:10.1093/ndt/gfk062
[26]	D. R. Broom, et al., “Gadodiamide-Associated Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis: Why Radiologists Should Be Concerned,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 188, No. 2, 2007, pp. 586-592.
[27]	A. Blandino, et al., “MR Urography of the Ureter,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 179, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1307-1314.
[28]	B. B. McDaniel, et al., “Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MR Urography in the Evaluation of Pediatric Hydronephrosis. Anatomic and Functional Assessment of Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 185, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1608-1614. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1574