Determination of Split Renal Function by 3D Reconstruction of CT Angiograms: A Comparison with Gamma Camera Renography
Adam L. Summerlin1,
Mark E. Lockhart2,
Andrew M. Strang3,
Peter N. Kolettis3,
Naomi S. Fineberg4 and
J. Kevin Smith2
1 University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL.
2 Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 19th St.,
South, JTN363, Birmingham, AL 35249-6830.
3 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
4 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at
Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
View larger version (149K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 1A —Three-dimensional reconstruction of kidney from original data
sets. Coronal (A) and axial (B) images of healthy 41-year-old
woman being evaluated as potential renal donor highlight ability of 3D tools
to isolate renal parenchyma (outlined areas) from adjacent structures
including renal pelvis.
|
|
View larger version (117K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 1B —Three-dimensional reconstruction of kidney from original data
sets. Coronal (A) and axial (B) images of healthy 41-year-old
woman being evaluated as potential renal donor highlight ability of 3D tools
to isolate renal parenchyma (outlined areas) from adjacent structures
including renal pelvis.
|
|
View larger version (90K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 1C —Three-dimensional reconstruction of kidney from original data
sets. Three-dimensional model generated from A and B is shown;
it can be manipulated in space using 3D software to ensure accurate generation
and delimitation of parenchymal borders.
|
|
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 2A —Distribution of voxel attenuations within representative
renal volume. Histograms of renal volume attenuations without lower threshold
(A) or with lower threshold (B). Both sets of data were
analyzed, even though differences are relatively small. Smoothing is ±
10. For A and B, respectively, mean total volume for entire
object without cut planes was 162.10 and 156.46 cm3; mean
attenuation ± SD, 116.0 ± 67.5 and 122.0 ± 61.0 HU;
minimum, –144.0 and –20.0 HU; maximum, 308.0 and 308.0 HU.
|
|
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 2B —Distribution of voxel attenuations within representative
renal volume. Histograms of renal volume attenuations without lower threshold
(A) or with lower threshold (B). Both sets of data were
analyzed, even though differences are relatively small. Smoothing is ±
10. For A and B, respectively, mean total volume for entire
object without cut planes was 162.10 and 156.46 cm3; mean
attenuation ± SD, 116.0 ± 67.5 and 122.0 ± 61.0 HU;
minimum, –144.0 and –20.0 HU; maximum, 308.0 and 308.0 HU.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 3 —Bar graph shows difference scores for volume without
threshold correction. Three-dimensional measures of split function vary in
same direction as renogram, but to lesser degree, thereby generating
difference score of each subject (bars) that correlate with renogram
split roughly along linear regression line shown (black line).
|
|
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
|
Fig. 4 —Bland-Altman analysis shows difference between CT and
radionuclide renography–based determinations of split function in
relation to mean difference (y = –0.06), and 95% CI for
difference score data set (dashed lines) (y = ± 1.96
SD).
|
|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.
