Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 8, pp 956–962 | Cite as

Utility of MR urography in children suspected of having ectopic ureter

  • Victor H. Figueroa
  • Govind B. Chavhan
  • Kamaldine Oudjhane
  • Walid Farhat
Original Article



Conventional imaging modalities are limited in the assessment of complex lower urinary tract anomalies including ectopic insertion of ureters. MR urography can be useful in these situations.


To share our experience with MR urography in assessing lower urinary tract anomalies and to determine its accuracy in depicting ectopic ureters.

Materials and methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all MR urography examinations done between November 2007 and March 2013 to note the presence or absence of duplex kidneys and insertion of ureters. We reviewed patient charts, surgical findings and results of other investigations including cystoscopy with retrograde ureterogram in order to establish presence or absence of ectopic ureter. This served as a reference standard against which we compared MR urography results.


Of 22 MR urography examinations (3 boys, 19 girls; age range 3–16 years, mean 9.2 years) performed during the study period, 19 were performed to rule out ectopic ureters, two to assess complex anatomy and one to rule out crossing vessel in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. MR urography showed ectopic ureter in 9/19 children; one proved to be a false-positive. MR urography correctly showed normal insertion in 7/19 children. In the remaining 3/19 children distal ureter could not be seen, hence insertion was indeterminate on MR urography. One of these children had an ectopic ureter on cystoscopy and surgery. Statistical analysis showed MR urography’s sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) to be 88.8–100%, 70–90%, 75–88.8% and 90–100% for the detection of ectopic ureter.


MR urography is highly accurate in the assessment of ectopic ureters. In incontinent girls, MR urography should be the method of choice for depicting or ruling out ectopic ureter.


MR urography Ectopic ureter Duplex kidney Children 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Avni FE, Nicaise N, Hall M et al (2001) The role of MR imaging for the assessment of complicated duplex kidneys in children: preliminary report. Pediatr Radiol 31:215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Riccabona M, Ruppert-Kohlmayr A, Ring E et al (2004) Potential impact of pediatric MR urography on the imaging algorithm in patients with a functional single kidney. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:795–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ehammer T, Riccabona M, Maier E (2011) High-resolution MR for evaluation of lower urogenital tract malformations in infants and children: feasibility and preliminary experiences. Eur J Radiol 78:388–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joshi M, Parelkar S, Shah H et al (2009) Role of magnetic resonance urography in the diagnosis of single-system ureteral ectopia with congenital renal dysplasia: a tertiary care center experience in India. J Pediatr Surg 44:1984–1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berrocal T, Lopez-Pereira P, Arjonilla A et al (2002) Anomalies of the distal ureter, bladder, and urethra in children: embryologic, radiologic, and pathologic features. Radiographics 22:1139–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Escala JM, Cadena Gonzalez Y, Lopez PJ et al (2008) Ectopic ureter in pediatrics. A change in the way of presentation. Arch Esp Urol 61:507–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roy Choudhury S, Chadha R, Bagga D et al (2008) Spectrum of ectopic ureters in children. Pediatr Surg Int 24:819–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lipson JA, Coakley FV, Baskin LS et al (2008) Subtle renal duplication as an unrecognized cause of childhood incontinence: diagnosis by magnetic resonance urography. J Pediatr Urol 4:398–400PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rohrschneider WK, Hoffend J, Becker K et al (2000) Combined static-dynamic MR urography for the simultaneous evaluation of morphology and function in urinary tract obstruction. I. Evaluation of the normal status in an animal model. Pediatr Radiol 30:511–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grattan-Smith JD (2008) MR urography: anatomy and physiology. Pediatr Radiol 38:S275–S280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khrichenko D, Darge K (2010) Functional analysis in MR urography – made simple. Pediatr Radiol 40:182–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vivier PH, Dolores M, Taylor M et al (2010) MR urography in children. Part 1: how we do the F0 technique. Pediatr Radiol 40:732–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riccabona M, Avni FE, Dacher JN et al (2010) ESPR uroradiology task force and ESUR pediatric working group: imaging and procedural recommendations in pediatric uroradiology, part III. Minutes of the ESPR uroradiology task force minisymposium on intravenous urography, uro-CT and MR-urography in childhood. Pediatr Radiol 40:1315–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor H. Figueroa
    • 1
  • Govind B. Chavhan
    • 2
  • Kamaldine Oudjhane
    • 2
  • Walid Farhat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric UrologyThe Hospital for Sick Children and University Of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic ImagingThe Hospital for Sick Children and University Of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations