Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved pelvicalyceal visualization with multidetector computed tomography urography; comparison with helical computed tomography

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

Abstract

Our aim was to compare the quality of pelvicalyceal visualization on computed tomography (CT) urography using a small intravenous contrast material dose, hydration, and high-resolution multidetector CT (MDCT) with that of conventional helical CT. The test (MDCT) group (49 consecutive patients, 98 kidneys) was scanned 5 min following an intravenous bolus of 30 ml of iodinated contrast material. The control (helical CT) group (50 consecutive patients, 95 kidneys) was scanned 5 min following injection of 120–150 ml of intravenous contrast material. Enhancement and quality of calyceal detail were measured using a five-scale grading system (1 for no detail, 5 for cupped calyces). Calyceal attenuation was substantial in both groups (more than 220 Hounsfield units, HU) but less in the test group compared with the control group (mean 475 and 920 HU, respectively), p<0.0001. In the test group, the calyceal attenuation was less than 500 HU in the majority of cases (65/98 kidneys), while the opposite was true for the control group, where calyceal attenuation was more than 750 HU in 50/95 kidneys (p<0.001). The quality of calyceal detail was 3.4/5 in the test group compared with 1.8/5 in the control group (p<0.0001). The combination of hydration, low-contrast dose, and the high image resolution achieved with MDCT significantly improves calyceal visualization in CT urography.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sheth S, Scatarige JC, Horton KM, Corl FM, Fishman EK (2001) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: role of multidetector CT and three-dimensional CT. Radiographics 21:S237–S254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A et al (2003) High-resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 180:1271–1277

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith RC, Verga M, Dalrymple N, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Acute ureteral obstruction: value of secondary signs of helical unenhanced CT. Am J Roentgenol 167:1109–1113

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Amis ES Jr (1999) Epitaph for the urogram. Radiology 213:639–640

    Google Scholar 

  5. Katz DS, Hines J, Rausch DR et al (1999) Unenhanced helical CT for suspected renal colic. Am J Roentgenol 173:425–430

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miller OF, Rineer SK, Reichard SR et al (1998) Prospective comparison of unenhanced spiral computed tomography and intravenous urogram in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Urology 52:982–987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boridy IC, Nikolaidis P, Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Goldman SM (1998) Noncontrast helical CT for ureteral stones. World J Urol 16:18–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McNicholas MM, Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK et al (1998) Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. Am J Roentgenol 170:1261–1267

    Google Scholar 

  9. McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Vrtiska TJ et al (2001) Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography. Radiology 221:395–403

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD, Silverman SG (2002) Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 225:783–790

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M et al (2002) Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology 222:353–360

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hu H, He HD, Foley WD, Fox SH (2000) Four multidetector-row helical CT: image quality and volume coverage speed. Radiology 215:55–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McCollough CH, Zink FE (1999) Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 26:2223–2230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Scolieri MJ, Paik ML, Brown SL, Resnick MI (2000) Limitations of computed tomography in the preoperative staging of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology 56:930–934

    Google Scholar 

  15. Buckley JA, Urban BA, Soyer P, Scherrer A, Fishman EK (1996) Transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis: a retrospective look at CT staging with pathologic correlation. Radiology 201:194–198

    Google Scholar 

  16. Heneghan JP, Kim DH, Leder RA, DeLong D, Nelson RC (2001) Compression CT urography: a comparison with IVU in the opacification of the collecting system and ureters. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:343–347

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave., Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    V. Raptopoulos & A. McNamara

  2. Radiology Dept., Sligo General Hospital, Sligo, Co. Sligo, Ireland

    A. McNamara

  3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02215, USA

    V. Raptopoulos

Authors
  1. V. Raptopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. McNamara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Raptopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Raptopoulos, V., McNamara, A. Improved pelvicalyceal visualization with multidetector computed tomography urography; comparison with helical computed tomography. Eur Radiol 15, 1834–1840 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2699-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2699-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation