Share this Article
Klaipetch A, Namwongprom S, Ekmahachai M, Lojanapiwat B
Correspondence: Dr Alisa Klaipetch, firstname.lastname@example.org
Introduction This study aimed to ascertain whether nonopacified kidney on excretory urography (also known as intravenous urography [IVU]) indicates nonsalvageability.
Methods We retrospectively reviewed 45 adult patients with chronic unilateral urinary tract obstruction, in whom IVU revealed nonopacified kidney on one side but normal excretion on the contralateral side. Affected kidneys with split glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 10 mL/min/1.73 m2 on 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid diuretic renal scintigraphy were considered nonsalvageable. Non-function was defined based on cutoff points (< 15% and < 20%) to determine the sensitivity and specificity of differential renal function. Differences in IVU and renal scintigraphy findings, with respect to the duration of delayed filming on IVU, were analysed for significance.
Results The results of IVU and renal scintigraphy findings for 34 (75.6%) nonopacified kidneys matched, representing nonsalvageable kidneys. Sensitivity and specificity of differential renal function were 76% and 100%, respectively, when the cutoff point for non-function was set at < 15%. Sensitivity and specificity were 97% and 82%, respectively, when the cutoff point was < 20%. There was no significant difference between renal scintigraphy findings and IVU with 2-hour and > 2-hour delayed films (p = 0.96).
Conclusion Although most nonopacified kidneys on IVU were nonsalvageable, a quarter of them were found to be salvageable on renal scintigraphy. Besides split GFR, differential function at cutoff point < 15% could be used to determine non-function of a chronic obstructed kidney when the contralateral kidney is normal. Delayed filming beyond two hours appears unnecessary in ensuring non-excretion on IVU.
Keywords: chronic obstruction, differential renal function, excretory urography, nonsalvageable, renal scintigraphy
Singapore Med J 2013; 54(5): 267-270; http://dx.doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2013106
| 1. Kinn AC. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term followup of adults with and without surgical treatment. J Urol 2000; 164:652-6. |
| 2. Kubba AK, Hollins GW, Deane RF. Nephrectomy: changing indications, 1960-1990. Br J Urol 1994; 74:274-8. |
|3. Thomas HS. Hsu SS, Stephen YN. Management of Upper Urinary Tract Obstruction. In: Campbell MF, Walsh PC, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, eds. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier, 2007: 1228-32.|
|4. Novick AC, Stream SB. Surgery of kidney. In: Campbell MF, Walsh PC, eds. Campbell's Urology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992: 2428-48.|
|5. Davidson AJ, Hartman DS, Choyke PL, et al. Obstructive uropathy. In: Davidson AJ, ed. Davidson's Radiology of the Kidney and Genitourinary Tract. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1999: 201-2.|
| 6. Shokeir AA, Provoost AP, Nijman RJ. Recoverability of renal function after relief of chronic partial upper urinary tract obstruction. BJU Int 1999; 83:11-7. |
|7. Bassiouny IE. Salvage pyeloplasty in nonvisualizing hydronephrotic kidney secondary to ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 1992; 148:685-7.|
| 8. Carlsen O. The gamma camera as an absolute measurement device: determination of glomerular filtration rate in 99mTc-DTPA renography using a dual head gamma camera. Nucl Med Commun 2004; 25:1021-9. |
|9. Fotopoulos A, Bokharhli JA, Tsiouris S, et al. [Comparison of six radionuclidic and non-radionuclidic methods for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic renal failure.] Hell J Nucl Med 2006; 9:133-40. Greek.|
| 10. Khalaf IM, Shokeir AA, El-Gyoushi FI, Amr HS, Amin MM. Recoverability of renal function after treatment of adult patients with unilateral obstructive uropathy and normal contralateral kidney: a prospective study. Urology 2004; 64:664-8. |
| 11. Thomson A, Gough DC. The use of renal scintigraphy in assessing the potential for recovery in the obstructed renal tract in children. BJU Int 2001; 87:853-6. |
|12. Sreenevasan G. Bilateral renal calculi. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1974; 55:3-12.|
| 13. Maenhout A, Ham H, Ismaili K, et al . Supranormal renal function in the unilateral hydronephrosis: does it represent true hyperfunction? Pediatr Nephrol 2005; 20:1762-5. |
| 14. Piepsz A, Ismaili K, Hall M, et al. How to interpret a deterioration of split function? Eur Urol 2005; 47:686-90. |
|15. Tanagho EA, McAninch JW. Radiology of the urinary tract. In: Smith DR, Tanagho EA, McAninch JW, eds. Smith's General Urology. 16th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004: 65.|
|16. Dunnick NR, Sandler CM, Newhouse JH, Amis ES. Textbook of Uroradiology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007: 44.|
|17. Kelalis PP, King LR, Belman AB. Clinical Pediatric Urology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1992: 701-3.|