Cited by 58Organ Donation and TransplantationRenal and Vascular PathologiesAnatomy and Medical Technology

Prospective study comparing three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating the renal vascular anatomy in potential living renal donors

Open access
Bhatti, Aftab A., Chugtai, Aamir, Haslam, Philip, Talbot, David, Rix, David A., Soomro, Naeem A.·2005·BJU International

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare the accuracy of multislice spiral computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in evaluating the renal vascular anatomy in potential living renal donors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-one donors underwent multislice spiral CTA and gadolinium-enhanced MRA. In addition to axial images, multiplanar reconstruction and maximum intensity projections were used to display the renal vascular anatomy. Twenty-four donors had a left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), whereas seven had right open donor nephrectomy (ODN); LDN was only considered if the renal vascular anatomy was favourable on the left. CTA and MRA images were analysed by two radiologists independently. The radiological and surgical findings were correlated after the surgery. RESULTS: CTA showed 33 arteries and 32 veins (100% sensitivity) whereas MRA showed 32 arteries and 31 veins (97% sensitivity). CTA detected all five accessory renal arteries whereas MRA only detected one. CTA also identified all three accessory renal veins whereas MRA identified two. CTA had a sensitivity of 97% and 47% for left lumbar and left gonadal veins, whereas MRA had a sensitivity of 74% and 46%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Multislice spiral CTA with three-dimensional reconstruction was more accurate than MRA for both renal arterial and venous anatomy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2005.05809.x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bhatti, A. A., Chugtai, A., Haslam, P., Talbot, D., Rix, D. A., & Soomro, N. A.
Affiliations
Freeman Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Soomro, Naeem A.
Venue
BJU International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-10-13
Volume
96
Issue
7
Pages
1105-1108
ISSN
  • 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-410X
OpenAlex
W2032164536
Cited by
58
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Renal and Vascular Pathologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Anatomy and Medical Technology
Keywords
living kidney donors, renal vascular anatomy, CT angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, donor nephrectomy, accessory renal artery, lumbar veins, gonadal vein, diagnostic accuracy, 3D reconstruction
MeSH terms
Humans, Kidney, Prospective Studies, Renal Artery, Renal Veins, Sensitivity and Specificity, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Kidney Transplantation, Magnetic Resonance Angiography, Living Donors, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Donor Selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review