Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic MR urography in urinary tract obstruction: implementation and preliminary results

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Recent studies have demonstrated magnetic resonance (MR) capabilities in evaluating renal morphology and function in patients with urinary obstruction. The objective of this report is to support the introduction of dynamic MR renography on any MR equipment.

Methods

A custom-made device of vials filled with different concentrations of gadolinium was studied by combinations of T1-weighted gradient-echo sequences and coils. We compared the capabilities of two coils (phased array vs. standard body), the properties of dynamic sequences, and the effects of increasing concentrations of gadolinium on signal intensity. In a second section, we designed MR urography plug-ins of Image J (DICOM image software) for the analysis of dynamic studies.

Results

Optimized gradient-echo sequences acquired with a phased array body coil produced acceptable quality images with a linear relation between signal intensity and the lowest concentrations of gadolinium. In vitro measurements showed loss of linearity above 8 mmol/L.

Conclusion

Theoretical calculation and data from the literature suggest that the gadolinium dose to the patient should not exceed one-fourth of the usual one (0.025 mmol/kg). Postprocessing using Image J software and the specifically designed plug-ins was validated. The collection of plug-ins is now available on the Internet.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Staatz G, Tacke J, Gunther RW (2003) MR urography today. Abdom Imaging 28:191–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borthne A, Nordshus T, Reiseter T, et al. (1999) MR urography: the future gold standard in paediatric urogenital imaging? Pediatr Radiol 29:694–701

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rohrschneider WK, Haufe S, Wiesel M, et al. (2002) Functional and morphologic evaluation of congenital urinary combined static-dynamic MR urography: findings in kidneys with a single collecting system. Radiology 224:683–694

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rothpearl A, Frager D, Subramanian A, et al. (1995) MR urography: technique and application. Radiology 194:125–130

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aerts P, Van Hoe L, Bosmans H, et al. (1996) Breath-Hold MR urography using the HASTE technique. AJR 166:543–545

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Teh HS, Ang ES, Wong WC, et al. (2003) MR renography using a dynamic gradient-echo sequence and low-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine as an alternative to radionuclide renography. AJR 181:441–450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. O’Reilly P, Aurell M, Britton K, et al. (1996) Consensus on diuresis renography for investigating the dilated upper urinary tract. Radionuclides in Nephrourology Group. Consensus Committee on Diuresis Renography. J Nucl Med 37:1872–1876

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Escott EJ, Rubinstein D (2003) Free DICOM image viewing and processing software for your desktop computer: what’s available and what it can do for you. Radiographics 23:1341–1357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rohrschneider WK, Haufe S, Clorius JH, Tröger J (2003) MR to assess renal function in children. Eur Radiol 13:1033–1045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. Evaluation of the normal status in an animal model. Pediatr Radiol 30:511–522

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. Findings in experimentally induced ureteric stenosis. Pediatr Radiol 30:523–532

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nolte-Ernsting CC, Adam GB, Gunther RW (2001) MR urography: examination techniques and clinical applications. Eur Radiol 11:355–372

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tang Y, Yamashita Y, Namimoto T, et al. (1996) The value of MR urography that uses HASTE sequences to reveal urinary tract disorders. AJR 167:1497–1502

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taylor J, Summers PE, Keevil SF, et al. (1997) Magnetic resonance renography: optimization of pulse sequence parameters and Gd-DTPA dose, and comparison with radionuclide renography. Magn Reson Imaging 15:637–649

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grattan-Smith JD, Perez-Bayfield MR, Jones RA, et al. (2003) MR imaging of kidneys: functional evaluation using F-15 perfusion imaging. Pediatr Radiol 33:293–304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grenier N, Basseau F, Ries M, et al. (2003) Functional MRI of the kidney. Abdom Imaging 28:164–175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee VS, Rusinek H, Lee P, et al. (2003) Dynamic three-dimensional MR renography of single kidney function: initial experience. Radiology 227:289–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Semelka RC, Hricak H, Tomei E, et al. (1990) Obstructive nephropathy: evaluation with dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 175:797–803

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Knesplova L, Krestin GP (1998) Magnetic resonance in the assessment of renal function. Eur Radiol 8:201–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Krestin GP, Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Haustein J, et al. (1992) Functional dynamic MRI, pharmacokinetics and safety of Gd-DTPA in patients with impaired renal function. Eur Radiol 2:16–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kastler B, Vetter D, Patay Z, Germain P. Imagerie rapide. In: Kastler B, ed. Comprendre l’IRM: Manuel d’auto apprentissage. Paris: Masson, 2003:133–175

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kikinis R, Von Schulthess GK, Jäger P, et al. (1987) Normal and hydronephrotic kidney: Evaluation of renal function with contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 165:837–842

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hittmair K, Turetschek K, Gomiscek G, et al. (1996) Field strength dependence of MRI contrast enhancement: phantom measurements and application to dynamic breast imaging. Br J Radiol 69:215–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Katzberg RW, Ivanovic M, Buonocore MH, et al. (2002) Gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted renal and abdominal imaging: quantitative discrepancy between clinical and in vitro findings. Acad Radiol 9:679–687

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Strich G, Hagan PL, Gerber KH, Slutsky RA (1985) Tissue distribution and magnetic resonance spin lattice relaxation effects of gadolinium-DTPA. Radiology 154:723–726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones RA, Perez-Brayfield MR, Kirsch A, Grattan Smith JD (2004) Renal transit time with MR urography in children. Radiology 233:41–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bakker J, Olree M, Kaatee R, et al. (1999) Renal volume measurements: accuracy and repeatability of US compared with that of MR imaging. Radiology 211:623–62

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a research grant from Rouen University Hospital (2000/105HP). Schering France provided the contrast medium (Magnevist) that was been used in phantom and clinical studies. The authors thank Philippe Le Hué, Eric Dumont, Denis Thoumas, and Lionel Nicol for assistance in performing the phantom study and preliminary clinical studies and Sylvain Payrouse, Sonia Choubrac, and Mickael Dolores for help in writing the plug-in software.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quant-If Laboratory, School of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Rouen, 22, Boulevard Gambetta, F-76183, Rouen, Cedex 01, France

    C. Lefort, P. Vera & J.-N. Dacher

  2. Department of Radiology, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, 20 Rue Leblanc, F-75908 , Paris, Cedex 15, France

    C. Lefort

  3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Rouen, 1 Rue de Germont, F-76031 Rouen, France

    N. Marouteau-Pasquier, A.-S. Pesquet & J.-N. Dacher

  4. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Rouen, 1 Rue de Germont, F-76031 Rouen, France

    C. Pfister

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, CRLCC Henri Becquerel, 1 Rue d’Amiens, F-76000, Rouen, France

    P. Vera

Authors
  1. C. Lefort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Marouteau-Pasquier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A.-S. Pesquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Vera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J.-N. Dacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J.-N. Dacher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lefort, C., Marouteau-Pasquier, N., Pesquet, AS. et al. Dynamic MR urography in urinary tract obstruction: implementation and preliminary results. Abdom Imaging 31, 232–240 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-005-0391-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-005-0391-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation