OJMI  Vol.3 No.3 , September 2013
Detectability of Renal Arteries in Living Renal Donors Using Multi-Detector CT: Comparison among Axial and Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Images
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose was to compare the effectiveness of MDCT reconstruction methods that improve detectability for detecting the renal arteries in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy irrespective of the ability of the radiologist. Methods: 128 patients with left nephrectomy and either one or multiple renal arteries were enrolled. Radiologists with varying levels of expertise (5 board-certified and 3 non-certified) interpreted all MDCT images, including axial, VR and MIP images, independently and determined the numbers of renal arteries. The interpretation times, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy rates were analyzed. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare the results from the various reconstruction methods. Results: At surgery, there were 156 arteries: 101 donors had one renal artery and 27 had multiple arteries. The interpretation time for board-certified radiologists was shorter than that for non-certified radiologists, and the interpretation time using MIP images was significantly shorter than that of using the other reconstruction methods. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy on axial images were significantly higher than those on other images. The average Az value for detection of the numbers of renal arteries using axial images was higher than that of using other images. Conclusion: MDCT is helpful in reviewing the numbers of donated renal arteries for radiologists with different levels of expertise, and different types of reconstructions.
Cite this paper: M. Kohno, T. Tajima, K. Omoto and S. Sakai, "Detectability of Renal Arteries in Living Renal Donors Using Multi-Detector CT: Comparison among Axial and Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Images," Open Journal of Medical Imaging, Vol. 3 No. 3, 2013, pp. 75-81. doi: 10.4236/ojmi.2013.33011.

[1]   T. M. Sasaki, F. Finelli, E. Bugarin, D. Fowlkes, J. Trollinger, D. Y. Barhyte, et al., “Is Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy the New Criterion Standard?” Archives of Surgery, Vol. 135, No. 8, 2000, pp. 943-947. doi:10.1001/archsurg.135.8.943

[2]   P. C. Kuo, L. B. Johnson and J. V. Sitzmann, “Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy with a 23-Hour Stay: A New Standard for Transplantation Surgery,” Annals of Surgery, Vol. 231, No. 5, 2000, pp. 771-779. doi:10.1097/00000658-200005000-00018

[3]   S. S. Raman, S. Pojchamarnwiputh, K. Muangsmboon, P. G. Schulam, H. A. Gritsch, et al., “Surgically Relevant Normal and Variant Renal Parenchymal and Vascular Anatomy in Preoperative 16-MDCT Evaluation of Potential Laparoscopic Renal Donors,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 188, No. 1, 2007, pp. 105-114. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.1002

[4]   S. Kawamoto, L. P. Lawler and E. K. Fishman, “Evaluation of the Renal Venous System on Late Arterial and Venous Phase Images with MDCT Angiography in Potential Living Laparoscopic Renal Donors,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 184, No. 1, 2005, pp. 539-545. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.1002

[5]   J. W. Chai, W. Lee, Y. H. Yin, H. J. Jae, J. W. Chung, H. H. Kim, et al., “CT Angiography for Living Kidney Donors: Accuracy, Cause of Misinterpretation and Prevalence of Variation,” Korean Journal of Radiology, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2008, pp. 333-339. doi:10.3348/kjr.2008.9.4.333

[6]   D. V. Sahani, N. Rastogi, A. C. Greenfield, S. P. Kalva, D. Ko, A. Saini, et al., “Multi-Detector Row CT in Evaluation of 94 Living Renal Donors by Readers with Varied Experience,” Radiology, Vol. 235, No. 3, 2005, pp. 905-910. doi:10.1148/radiol.2353040496

[7]   S. Kawamoto, R. A. Montgomery, L. P. Lawler, K. M. Horton and E. K. Fishman, “Multidetector CT Angiography for Preoperative Evaluation of Living Laparoscopic Kidney Donors,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 180, No. 6, 2003, pp. 1633-1638. doi:10.2214/ajr.180.6.1801633

[8]   E. L. Hanninen, T. Denecke, L. Stelter, M. Pech, P. Podrabsky, J. Pratschke, et al., “Preoperative Evaluation of Living Kidney Donors Using Multirow Detector Computed Tomography: Comparison with Digital Subtraction Angiography and Intraoperative Findings,” Transplant International, Vol. 18, No. 10, 2005, pp. 1134-1141. doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2005.00196.x?

[9]   J. K. Kim, J. H. Kim, S. J. Bae and K. S. Cho, “CT Angiography for Evaluation of Living Renal Donors: Comparison of Four Reconstruction Methods,” American Journal of Roentgenology Vol. 183, No. 2, 2004, pp. 471-477. doi:10.2214/ajr.183.2.1830471

[10]   L. E. Ratner, L. R. Kavoussi, K. D. Chavin and R. Montgomery, “Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy: Technical Consideration and Allograft Vascular Length,” Transplantation, Vol. 65, No. 12, 1998, pp. 1657-1658. doi:10.1097/00007890-199806270-00021

[11]   A. K. Mandal, C. Cohen, R. A. Montgomery, L. R. Kavoussi and L. E. Ratner, “Should the Indications for Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy of the Right Kidney Be the Same as for the Open Procedure? Anomalous Left Renal Vasculature Is Not a Contraindication to Laparoscopic Left Donor Nephrectomy,” Transplantation, Vol. 71, No. 5, 2001, pp. 660-664. doi:10.1097/00007890-200103150-00015

[12]   S. S. Raman, S. Pojchamarnwiputh, K. Muangsmboon, P. G. Schulam, H. A. Gritsch and D. S. Lu, “Utility of 16-MDCT Angiography for Comprehensive Preoperative Vascular Evaluation of Laparoscopic Renal Donors,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 186, No. 6, 2006, pp. 1630-1638. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0983

[13]   J. A. Hanley and B. J. McNeil, “A Method of Comparing the Areas under Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves Derived from the Same Cases,” Radiology, Vol. 148, No. 3, 1983, pp. 839-843.

[14]   S. Kawamoto, R. A. Montgomery, L. P. Lawler, K. M. Horton and E. K. Fishman, “Multi-Detector Row CT Evaluation of Living Renal Donors Prior to Laparoscopic Nephrectomy,” RadioGraphics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2004, pp. 453-466. doi:10.1148/rg.242035104

[15]   K. S. Satyapal, A. A. Haffejee, B. Singh, L. Ramsaroop, J. V. Robbs and J. M. Kalideen, “Additional Renal Arteries: Incidence and Morphometry,” Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy, Vol. 23, No.1, 2001, pp. 33-38. doi:10.1007/s00276-001-0033-y

[16]   K. C. Hong and P. C. Freeny, “Pancreaticoduodenal Arcades and Dorsal Pancreatic Artery: Comparison of CT Angiography with Three-Dimensional Volume Rendering, Maximum Intensity Projection, and Shaded-Surface Display,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 172, No. 4, 1999, pp. 925-931. doi:10.2214/ajr.172.4.10587122

[17]   P. T. Johnson, D. G. Heath, B. S. Kuszyk and E. K. Fishman, “CT Angiography with Volume Rendering: Advantages and Applications in Splanchnic Vascular Imaging,” Radiology, Vol. 229, No. 3, 2003, pp. 869-876.

[18]   J. H. Byun, T. K. Kim, S. S. Lee, J. K. Lee, H. K. Ha, A. Y. Kim, et al., “Evaluation of the Hepatic Artery in Potential Donors for Living Donor Liver Transformation by Computed Tomography Angiography Using Multidetector-Row Computed Tomography: Comparison of Volume Rendering and Maximum Intensity Projection Techniques,” Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2003, pp. 125-131. doi:10.1097/00004728-200303000-00004

[19]   N. Rastogi, D. V. Sahani, M. A. Blake, D. C. Ko and P. R. Mueller, “Evaluation of Living Renal Donors: Accuracy of Three-Dimensional 16-Section CT,” Radiology, Vol. 240, No. 1, 2006, pp. 136-144. doi:10.1148/radiol.2401050780