Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation of the contribution of routine ultrasound when performed with multiphase CT in renal donor imaging assessment

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

We sought to examine the contribution of routine ultrasound when performed with computed tomography in identifying exclusion criteria in potential living kidney donors.

Methods

We performed a 10-year retrospective cohort study including all cases of potential renal donors at our center. For each case, the donor workup ultrasound (US) and multiphase computed tomography (MPCT) original reports and imaging were reviewed by a fellowship-trained abdominal radiologist in consultation with a transplant urologist and placed into one of 3 groups: (1) no significant US contribution, (2) US was useful to characterize an incidental finding (either US exclusive or US aided in CT interpretation) but did not impact donor eligibility, and (3) an US exclusive finding contributed to donor exclusion.

Results

A total of 432 potential live renal donors were evaluated (mean age 41, 263 women). In total, 340 (78.7%, group 1) cases had no significant US contribution. In 90 cases (20.8%, group 2), US helped to characterize one or more incidental findings but did not contribute to donor exclusion. In 1 (0.2%, group 3) case, an US exclusive finding (suspected medullary nephrocalcinosis) contributed towards donor exclusion.

Conclusion

US provided limited contribution to renal donor eligibility decisions when performed routinely with MPCT.

Clinical relevance

Routine ultrasound could potentially be omitted in the live renal donor workup, with alternative strategies including a selective approach to incorporating ultrasound and an expanded role of dual-energy CT.

Key Points

• Ultrasound is performed routinely with CT for renal donor assessment in some jurisdictions; however, this practice has come into question particularly with advances in dual-energy CT.

• Our study found that routine use of ultrasound provided limited contribution, primarily assisting CT in characterization of benign findings with only 1/432 (0.2%) potential donors in a 10-year period excluded based in part on an ultrasound exclusive finding.

• The role of ultrasound can be narrowed to a targeted approach for certain at-risk patients, and can be further reduced if dual-energy CT is utilized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed tomography

DECT:

Dual-energy computed tomography

HU:

Hounsfield units

kV:

Kilovolts

mA:

Milliamps

MAG3/DTPA:

Mercaptoacetyltriglycine/diethylenetriaminepentacetate

MDCT:

Multidetector computed tomography

MPCT:

Multiphase computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

US:

Ultrasound

References

  1. Mastrocostas K, Chingkoe CM, Pace KT et al (2018) Computed tomography identified factors that preclude living kidney donation. Can Urol Assoc J 12: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4909

  2. Zand MS, Strang J, Dumlao M, Rubens D, Erturk E, Bronsther O (2001) Screening a living kidney donor for polycystic kidney disease using heavily T2-weighted MRI. Am J Kidney Dis 37:612–619. https://doi.org/10.1053/ajkd.2001.22089

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maizlin ZV, Barnard SA, Gourlay WA, Brown JA (2007) Economic and ethical impact of extrarenal findings on potential living kidney donor assessment with computed tomography angiography. Transpl Int 20:338–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2006.00443.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Helmy D, Troppmann C, Fananapazir G (2018) Preoperative imaging evaluation of living kidney transplant donors. In: Fananapazir G, Lamba R (eds) Transplantation imaging. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 17–32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Richardson R, Connelly M, Dipchand C et al (2015) Kidney paired donation protocol for participating donors 2014. Transplantation 99:S1–S88. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000000918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aghayev A, Gupta S, Dabiri BE, Steigner ML (2019) Vascular imaging in renal donors. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 9:S116–S130. https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt.2018.11.02

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Pozniak MA, Balison DJ, Lee FT, Tambeaux RH, Uehling DT, Moon TD (1998) CT angiography of potential renal transplant donors. Radiographics 18:565–587. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.3.9599383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Patil UD (2001) Helical CT angiography in evaluation of live kidney donors. Nephrol Dial Transplant 16:1900–1904. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/16.9.1900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhatti AA, Chugtai A, Haslam P, Talbot D, Rix DA, Soomro NA (2005) Prospective study comparing three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the renal vascular anatomy in potential living renal donors. BJU Int 96:1105–1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05809.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laugharne M, Haslam E, Archer L, et al (2007) Multidetector CT angiography in live donor renal transplantation: experience from 156 consecutive cases at a single centre. Transpl Int 20: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2006.00417.x

  11. Ascenti G, Mazziotti S, Mileto A et al (2012) Dual-source dual-energy CT evaluation of complex cystic renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1026–1034. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmidt D, Söderberg M, Nilsson M, Lindvall H, Christofferson C, Leander P (2018) Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose of abdominal dual-energy CT. Acta Radiol 59:845–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117732806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Salameh J-P, McInnes MDF, McGrath TA, Salameh G, Schieda N (2019) Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy CT for evaluation of renal masses: systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:W100–W105. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Winkel RR, Kalhauge A, Fredfeldt K-E (2012) The usefulness of ultrasound colour-doppler twinkling artefact for detecting urolithiasis compared with low dose nonenhanced computerized tomography. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1180–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.03.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drudi FM, Liberatore M, Cantisani V et al (2014) Role of color Doppler ultrasound in the evaluation of renal transplantation from living donors. J Ultrasound 17:207–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-014-0077-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyce AM, Shawker TH, Hill SC et al (2013) Ultrasound is superior to computed tomography for assessment of medullary nephrocalcinosis in hypoparathyroidism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98:989–994. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2012-2747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. BC Transplant. (2019) Clinical guidelines for living donor kidney transplantation. Available from: http://www.transplant.bc.ca/Documents/Clinical%20Guidelines%20for%20Living%20Donor%20Kidney%20Transplantation%202019.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2022

  18. Alberta Health Services (2019) Living kidney donation. Available from: https://myhealth.alberta.ca/KidneyTransplant/living-kidney-donation/testing/chest-x-ray-renal-scan-ct-scan. Accessed 3 Apr 2022

  19. Transplant Manitoba (2016) Living kidney donor guide. Available from: https://www.transplantmanitoba.ca/uploads/ck/files/FINAL_living%20kidney%20donor%20guide%20&cover_2016.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2022

  20. London Health Sciences Center (2017) Multi-organ transplant program living kidney donation. Available from: https://www.lhsc.on.ca/media/2529/download. Accessed 2022 Apr 3

  21. St. Michael’s Hospital (2019) Donating a kidney. Available from: https://smh.andornot.com/en/viewer?file=%2fmedia%2fdocuments%2fPDFs_Database_Collection%2f71988_PE_Donating_a_kidney_Aug08_2019_V2.pdf#phrase=false. Accessed 3 Apr 2022

  22. National Kidney Foundation (2015) Testing involved in the living donor evaluation process. Available from: https://www.kidney.org/transplantation/livingdonors/testing-living-donor-evaluation-process. Accessed 3 Apr 2022

  23. United Network for Organ Sharing (2016) Living donation. Available from: https://www.unos.org/wp-content/uploads/unos/Living_Donation.pdf?b2d5de. Accessed 2022 Apr 3

  24. Abramowicz D, Cochat P, Claas FHJ et al (2015) European Renal Best Practice Guideline on kidney donor and recipient evaluation and perioperative care: FIGURE 1. Nephrol Dial Transplant 30:1790–1797. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. British Transplantation Society (2018) Guidelines for living donor kidney transplantation. Available from: https://bts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/FINAL_LDKT-guidelines_June-2018.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2022

  26. Lentine KL, Kasiske BL, Levey AS et al (2017) KDIGO clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. Transplantation 101:S7–S105. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001769

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Levidiotis V (2009) Live kidney donors - assessment and follow up. Aust Fam Physician 38:316–320

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. National Renal Transplant Service (2020) Guideline for the evaluation of living kidney donors in NZ. https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/nz-live-donor-guidelines-oct2020.pdf. Accessed 3 Apr 2022

  29. Elder J (2020) Congenital anomalies and dysgenesis of the kidneys. In: Kleigmann RM, St. Geme III JW, Blum NJ et al (eds) Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 21st edn. Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, pp 2786–2789

  30. Kirkpatrick JJ, Leslie SW (2022) Horseshoe kidney. In: StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK431105/. Accessed 6 Jan 2022

  31. Venturoli N, Costa A, Ridolfi L et al (2000) Reliability of ultrasound screening of liver and kidney donors: a retrospective study. Prog Transplant 10:182–185. https://doi.org/10.7182/prtr.10.3.6m0853900n3k7972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Harmath CB, Wood CG, Berggruen SM, Tantisattamo E (2016) Renal pretransplantation work-up, donor, recipient, surgical techniques. Radiol Clin North Am 54:217–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2015.09.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Sohrab Towfighi & Emily Pang

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Sargun Bajaj

  3. Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Trisha Aggarwal

  4. Department of Urology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Christopher Nguan

Authors
  1. Sohrab Towfighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sargun Bajaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Trisha Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher Nguan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emily Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily Pang.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Emily Pang.

Conflict of interest

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.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Towfighi, S., Bajaj, S., Aggarwal, T. et al. An evaluation of the contribution of routine ultrasound when performed with multiphase CT in renal donor imaging assessment. Eur Radiol 33, 6592–6598 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09578-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09578-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation