European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 651–659 | Cite as

Use of computed tomography assessed kidney length to predict split renal GFR in living kidney donors

  • François GaillardEmail author
  • Patrik Pavlov
  • Anne-Marie Tissier
  • Benoit Harache
  • Dominique Eladari
  • Marc-Olivier Timsit
  • Catherine Fournier
  • Carine Léon
  • Chantal Hignette
  • Gérard Friedlander
  • Jean-Michel Correas
  • Pierre Weinmann
  • Arnaud Méjean
  • Pascal Houillier
  • Christophe Legendre
  • Marie Courbebaisse
Computed Tomography



Screening of living kidney donors may require scintigraphy to split glomerular filtration rate (GFR). To determine the usefulness of computed tomography (CT) to split GFR, we compared scintigraphy-split GFR to CT-split GFR. We evaluated CT-split GFR as a screening test to detect scintigraphy-split GFR lower than 40 mL/min/1.73 m2/kidney.


This was a monocentric retrospective study on 346 potential living donors who had GFR measurement, renal scintigraphy, and CT. We predicted GFR for each kidney by splitting GFR using the following formula: Volume-split GFR for a given kidney = measured GFR*[volume of this kidney/(volume of this kidney + volume of the opposite kidney)]. The same formula was used for length-split GFR. We compared length- and volume-split GFR to scintigraphy-split GFR at donation and with a 4-year follow-up.


A better correlation was observed between length-split GFR and scintigraphy-split GFR (r = 0.92) than between volume-split GFR and scintigraphy-split GFR (r = 0.89). A length-split GFR threshold of 45 mL/min/1.73 m2/kidney had a sensitivity of 100 % and a specificity of 75 % to detect scintigraphy-split GFR less than 40 mL/min/1.73 m2/kidney. Both techniques with their respective thresholds detected living donors with similar eGFR evolution during follow-up.


Length-split GFR can be used to detect patients requiring scintigraphy.

Key points

Excellent correlation between kidney length and scintigraphy predicted GFR

Kidney length screening detects all donors with GFR lower than 40 mL/min/1.73 m 2

Kidney length screening can replace scintigraphy screening.


living donor kidney renal transplantation CT split renal function/split GFR 



area under the curve


computed tomography


51Cr-ethylene-diamine tetra acetic acid


99mTc-diethylene-triamine penta acetic acid


glomerular filtration rate


modification of diet in renal disease


receiver operating characteristics


region of interest


split renal function


split renal volume


ordinary least squares



The scientific guarantor of this publication is Marie Courbebaisse. François Gaillard thanks Ecole de l'INSERM-Liliane Bettencourt. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, REF2013-11-10. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Supplementary material

330_2016_4410_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (2.4 mb)
ESM 1 (JPG 2437 kb)
330_2016_4410_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (1.4 mb)
ESM 2 (JPG 1407 kb)
330_2016_4410_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (4.7 mb)
ESM 3 (JPG 4783 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hariharan S, Johnson CP, Bresnahan BA, Taranto SE, McIntosh MJ, Stablein D (2000) Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996. N Engl J Med 342:605–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Legendre C, Canaud G, Martinez F (2014) Factors influencing long-term outcome after kidney transplantation. Transpl Int 27:19–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garg AX, Muirhead N, Knoll G, Yang RC, Prasad GV, Thiessen-Philbrook H et al (2006) (Donor Nephrectomy Outcomes Research (DONOR) Network). Proteinuria and reduced kidney function in living kidney donors: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Kidney Int 70(10):1801–1810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ibrahim HN, Foley R, Tan L, Rogers T, Bailey RF, Guo H et al (2009) Long-term consequences of kidney donation. N Engl J Med 360(5):459–469CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mjoen G, Hallan S, Hartmann A, Foss A, Midtvedt A, Oyen O et al (2014) Long-term risks for kidney donors. Kidney Int 86:162–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muzaale AD, Massie AB, Wang MC, Montgomery RA, McBride MA, Wainright JL et al (2014) Risk of end-stage renal disease following live kidney donation. JAMA 311:579–586CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yakoubi R, Autorino R, Kassab A, Long JA, Haber GP, Kaouk JH (2013) Does preserved kidney volume predict 1 year donor renal function after laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy? Int J Urol 20(9):931–934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanriover B, Fernandez S, Campenot ES, Newhouse JH, Oyfe I, Mohan P, Sandikci B, Radhakrishnan J, Wexler JJ, Carroll MA, Sharif S, Cohen DJ, Ratner LE, Hardy MA (2015) Live Donor Renal Anatomic Asymmetry and Posttransplant Renal Function. Transplantation 99(8):e66–e74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore DR, Serur D, Rudow DL, Rodrigue JR, Hays R, Cooper M (2015) Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Efficiencies in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation-Recommendations from a Consensus Conference. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10(9):1678–1686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diez A, Powelson J, Sundaram CP, Taber TE, Mujtaba MA, Yaqub MS et al (2014) Correlation between CT-based measured renal volumes and nuclear-renography-based split renal function in living kidney donors. Clinical diagnostic utility and practice patterns. Clin Transplant 28(6):675–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patankar K, Su-Tong Low R, Blakeway D (2014) Ferrari P Comparison of computer tomographic volumetry versus nuclear split renal function to determine residual renal function after living kidney donation. Acta Radiol 55(6):753–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halleck F, Diederichs G, Koehlitz T, Slowinski T, Engelken F, Liefeldt L et al (2013) Volume matters: CT-based renal cortex volume measurement in the evaluation of living kidney donors. Transplantation International 26:1208–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yokoyama N, Ishimura T (2015) Usefulness of three-dimensional computerized tomographic volumetry for determining split renal function in donors for living-related kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 47(3):588–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Breau RH, Clark E, Bruner B, Cervini P, Atwell T, Knoll G et al (2013) A simple method to estimate renal volume from computed tomography. Can Urol Assoc J 7(5-6):189–192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Summerlin AL, Lockhart ME, Strang AM, Kolettis PN, Fineberg NS, Smith JK (2008) Determination of split renal function by 3D reconstruction of CT angiograms: a comparison with gamma camera renography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1552–1558CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kato F, Kamishima T, Morita K, Muto NS, Okamoto S, Omatsu T et al (2011) Rapid estimation of split renal function in kidney donors using software developed for computed tomographic renal volumetry. Eur J Radiol 79:15–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soga S, Britz-Cunningham S, Kumamaru KK, Malek SK, Tullius SG, Rybicki FJ (2012) Comprehensive comparative study of computed tomography-based estimates of split renal function for potential renal donors: modified ellipsoid method and other CT-based methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:323–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piepsz A, Kinthaert J, Tondeur M, Ham HR (1996) The robustness of the Patlak-Rutland slope for the determination of split renal function. Nucl Med Commun 17(9):817–821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Delmonico FL: A report of the Amsterdam forum on thecare of the live kidney donor: data and medical guidelines.Transplantation 79[Suppl]: S53–S66, 2005Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bia MJ, Ramos EL, Danovitch GM, Gaston RS, Harmon WE, Leichtman AB et al (1995) Evaluation of living renal donors. The current practice of US transplant centers. Transplantation 60:322–327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gabolde M, Herve C, Moulin AM (2001) Evaluation, selection, and follow-up of live kidney donors: A review of current practice in French renal transplant centres. Nephrol Dial Transplant 16:2048–2052CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rule AD, Gussak HM, Pond GR, Bergstralh EJ, Stegall MD, Cosio FG et al (2004) Measured and estimated GFR in healthy potential kidney donors. Am J Kidney Dis 43:112–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis CL, Delmonico FL (2005) Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Review of the Current Practices for the Live Donor. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:2098–2110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Gaillard
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrik Pavlov
    • 2
  • Anne-Marie Tissier
    • 3
  • Benoit Harache
    • 4
  • Dominique Eladari
    • 5
  • Marc-Olivier Timsit
    • 6
  • Catherine Fournier
    • 1
  • Carine Léon
    • 1
  • Chantal Hignette
    • 4
  • Gérard Friedlander
    • 7
  • Jean-Michel Correas
    • 3
  • Pierre Weinmann
    • 4
  • Arnaud Méjean
    • 6
  • Pascal Houillier
    • 8
  • Christophe Legendre
    • 1
  • Marie Courbebaisse
    • 7
  1. 1.AP-HP, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Renal Transplantation DepartmentParis Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.Linköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.AP-HP, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Radiology DepartmentParis Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  4. 4.AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Nuclear Medicine DepartmentParis Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  5. 5.AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Physiology DepartmentParis Descartes University, and INSERM, Unit 970ParisFrance
  6. 6.AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Urology DepartmentParis Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  7. 7.AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Physiology DepartmentParis Descartes University, and INSERM, Unit 1151ParisFrance
  8. 8.AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Physiology DepartmentParis Descartes University, INSERM, Unit umrs1138, and CNRS Unit erl8228ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations