Open AccessEvaluation of CT perfusion parameters for assessment of split renal function in healthy donors
Author(s) -
M. T. El-Diasty,
Ghada Gaballa,
Hossam M. Gad,
Mohamed A Borg,
Mohamed Abou-Elghar,
Khaled Z. Sheir,
Tarek El-Diasty
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the egyptian journal of radiology and nuclear medicine /the egyptian journal of radiology and nuclear medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.19
H-Index - 13
eISSN - 2090-4762
pISSN - 0378-603X
DOI - 10.1016/j.ejrnm.2016.07.017
Subject(s) - perfusion , medicine , renal cortex , nuclear medicine , significant difference , kidney , renal function , perfusion scanning , cortex (anatomy) , kidney cortex , parenchyma , blood volume , radiology , pathology , biology , neuroscience
ObjectivesTo assess feasibility of automatically calculated CT perfusion parameters using two different methods of drawing regions of interest (ROIs) to reflect split renal function in comparison with MAG3 renography.Methods and materials51 potential kidney donors (24 males, 27 females) were prospectively evaluated by preoperative CT perfusion. Post processing was done twice; one with ROI around renal cortex only and the other around cortex and medulla. Perfusion parameters (perfusion, peak enhancement intensity PEI and blood volume BV) were compared between the two methods. Split values for each of these parameters were calculated and compared to split renal function measured by MAG3 renography using paired samples t test.ResultsPerfusion was significantly lower in method 2 than in method 1 while PEI and BV showed no significant difference between the two methods. Split values of CT parameters showed no significant difference from corresponding renography split function (p value>0.1) except BV by method 1 and perfusion by method 2 which showed significant difference (p value<0.05).ConclusionCertain CT perfusion parameters can reflect split renal function. Perfusion was more accurate in reflecting split renal function with ROI around the cortex while BV was more accurate with ROI around the whole parenchyma