AJR Custom publishing of AJR articles and ARRS Cat. Course
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Winsett, M.
Right arrow Articles by Winsett, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Winsett, M.
Right arrow Articles by Winsett, O.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 150, Issue 2, 319-323
Copyright © 1988 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Renal transplant dysfunction: MR evaluation

MZ Winsett, EG Amparo, HD Fawcett, R Kumar, RF Johnson Jr, DG Bedi, and OE Winsett

Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston 77550.

The results of 45 MR examinations were prospectively compared with the clinical course and biopsy results in 38 renal transplant patients to determine the role of MR in evaluating allograft dysfunction. Twenty-six patients underwent allograft biopsy. In eight patients in whom the biopsy was performed more than 48 hr after MR examination and in 19 patients who did not have a biopsy, the subsequent clinical course was sufficiently diagnostic to determine the specific cause of the transplant dysfunction. Corticomedullary differentiation, graded from 0 to 3, was not helpful in separating rejection (n = 20) from acute tubular necrosis (n = 9), drug toxicity (n = 7), pyelonephritis (n = 2), or normal grafts (n = 7) because of overlap between groups (sensitivity =; 60%, specificity = 60%). In the six patients with two or more MR studies, serial changes in corticomedullary differentiation were not consistent and could not be used to diagnose rejection. When any abnormality of allograft sinus fat, size or shape, or corticomedullary differentiation was considered, the sensitivity for the diagnosis of rejection approached 80%; however, specificity was low (48%). We conclude that MR imaging is not sufficiently accurate to replace transplant biopsy and therefore has a limited role in the evaluation of transplant dysfunction.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1988 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.