4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Kidney dimensions at sonography are correlated with glomerular filtration rate in renal transplant recipients and in kidney donors

Journal

TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 1779-1781

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2007.05.003

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The gold standard to assess renal function is the measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). For practical reasons, renal function is often evaluated from serum creatinine (S Cr) or cystatin C (S Cys), and GFR is predicted from SCr. Ultrasound scanning of the kidneys is used only to evaluate renal morphology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between sonographic renal dimensions and GFR in renal transplant recipients and in kidney donors. GFR (urinary clearance of Tc-99m-DTPA), S Cr, and S Cys were measured in 33 donors (28 females [F], 5 males [M]; SCr, 0.81-1.90 mg/dL) and 30 recipients (8 F, 22 M; SCr, 0.96-2.42 mg/dL). GFR was also predicted using the Cockcroft and Gault (CG) formula and with the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula. Length, width, and depth of kidneys and renal sinus were measured using renal sonography. Among sonographic measurements, kidney length showed the best correlation with GFR. A closer correlation with GFR was found in donors (r = 0.639; P <.00007) than in recipients (r = 0.511; P <.005). In either case, the correlation of kidney length with GFR was greater than that of S Cr or S Cys, and similar to that of CG or MDRD GFR. Accuracy of kidney length as an indicator of GFR impairment was not statistically different from laboratory tests. Only in donors did CG show better accuracy. In conclusion, renal dimensions at sonography closely correlated with GFR. Thus, renal sonography can give information also on the function of the renal graft and of the remaining kidney of living donors.

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