4.4 Article

Is there a role for free breathing non-contrast steady-state free precession renal MRA imaging for assessing live donors? A preliminary study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 85, Issue 1016, Pages E448-E454

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/16270927

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Accurate pre-operative evaluation of renal vascular anatomy is essential for successful renal harvest in live donor transplantation. Non-contrast renal MR angiographic (MRA) techniques are potentially well suited to the screening of donors; however, their restricted imaging field of view (FOV) has previously been an important limitation. We sought to assess whether the addition of a large FOV balanced fast field echo (BFFE) steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequence to non-contrast SSFP MRA could overcome this problem. Comparison with contrast-enhanced MRA (CE MRA) and findings at surgery were performed. Methods: 22 potential renal donors each underwent SSFP and CE MRA. 11 out of 22 potential donors subsequently underwent a donor nephrectomy. Results: All images were diagnostic. Both SSFP MRA and CE MRA identified an equal number of arteries. Surgery confirmed two accessory renal arteries, both demonstrated with both imaging techniques. A third accessory vessel was identified with both techniques on a kidney contralateral to the donated organ. 6 out of 11 procured kidneys demonstrated early branch arteries at surgery, 5 out of 6 of which had been depicted on both SSFP and CE MRA. The median grading of image quality for main renal arteries was slightly better for CE MRA (p=0.048), but for accessory vessels it was better for SSFP MRA. Conclusion: This pilot study indicates that by combining free-breathing SSFP MRA with large-FOV bFFE images, an accurate depiction of renal vascular anatomy without the need for intravenous contrast administration can be obtained, as compared with surgical findings and CE MRA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available