4.1 Article

Kidney Volume Estimations with Ellipsoid Equations by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

Journal

NEPHRON
Volume 129, Issue 4, Pages 253-262

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000381476

Keywords

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease; Kidney volume; Ellipsoid volume equation; Magnetic resonance imaging

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  2. Otsuka
  3. Takeda
  4. Daiichi Sankyo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Kidney volume (KV) becomes clinically relevant in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) management. KV can be conveniently estimated (ceKV) using ellipsoid volume equations with three axes measurements; however, the accuracy and reliability are unknown. Methods: KVs of 347 kidneys in 177 consecutive ADPKD patients were determined with a volumetric method (standard-KV), and ceKV was calculated using six different ellipsoid equations with three axes measurements using magnetic resonance imaging. The inter-and intraobserver reliabilities were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Ellipsoid-KVs were obtained by linear regression analysis between standard-KV and ceKVs, and six ellip-soid- KVs were validated with a bootstrap model. Results: The ICCs of intra-and interobserver reliabilities in standard-KV and axes measurements were highly reliable. All ceKVs underestimated standard-KV and % differences between ceKV and standard-KV were reduced by ellipsoid-KVs. Boot-strap analyses suggested that six ellipsoid-KVs reliably simulated standard-KV. Conclusion: Among six ellipsoid-KVs, ellipsoid-KV3 = 84 + 1.01 x pi/24 x Length x (sum of two width measurements) 2 relatively accurately simulated the standard-KV. Kidney volume estimation using ellipsoid equations is reliably applied to clinical management of ADPKD while recognizing wide scattering in the difference between estimated and volumetrically measured kidney volume. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available