Renal volume measurements: Accuracy and repeatability of US compared with that of MR imaging

被引:212
作者
Bakker, J
Olree, M
Kaatee, R
de Lange, EE
Moons, KGM
Beutler, JJ
Beek, FJA
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht Hosp, Dept Radiol, NL-3584 CX Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Utrecht Hosp, Dept Nephrol, NL-3584 CX Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Virginia, Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Radiol, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
[4] Univ Utrecht, Julius Ctr Patient Oriented Res, Utrecht, Netherlands
关键词
kidney; MR; US; magnetic resonance (MR); volume measurement; ultrasound; (US); comparative studies;
D O I
10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn19623
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy and repeatability of ultrasonography (US) with the ellipsoid formula in calculating the renal volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The renal volumes in 20 volunteers aged 19-51 years were determined by using US with the ellipsoid formula and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with the voxel-count method by two independent observers for each modality. The observers performed all measurements twice, with an interval between the first and second examinations. The voxel-count method was the reference standard. Repeatability was evaluated by calculating the SD of the difference (method of Bland and Altman). RESULTS: Renal volume was underestimated with US by 45 mL (25%) on average. A comparable underestimation was found when the ellipsoid formula was applied to MR images. This indicates that the inaccuracy of US renal volume measurements (a) occured because the kidney does not resemble an ellipsoid and (b) was not primarily related to the imaging modality. Intra- and interobserver variations in US volume measurements were poor; the SD of the difference was 21-32 mL. For comparison, the SD of the difference in reference-standard measurements was 5-10 mL. CONCLUSION: Use of US with the ellipsoid formula is not appropriate for accurate and reproducible calculation of renal volume.
引用
收藏
页码:623 / 628
页数:6
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] HOW RELIABLE ARE ULTRASOUND MEASUREMENTS OF RENAL LENGTH IN ADULTS
    ABLETT, MJ
    COULTHARD, A
    LEE, REJ
    RICHARDSON, DL
    BELLAS, T
    OWEN, JP
    KEIR, MJ
    BUTLER, TJ
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1995, 68 (814) : 1087 - 1089
  • [2] QUANTITATIVE DERIVATES OF RENAL RADIOLOGIC STUDIES
    ABRAMS, HL
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1972, 7 (04) : 240 - +
  • [3] CHANGES IN TRANSPLANTED KIDNEY VOLUME MEASURED BY ULTRASOUND
    ABSY, M
    METREWELI, C
    MATTHEWS, C
    ALKHADER, A
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1987, 60 (714) : 525 - 529
  • [4] Allan PL, 1993, ABDOMINAL GEN ULTRAS, P456
  • [5] COMPUTERIZED VOLUME MEASUREMENT OF BRAIN STRUCTURE
    ASHTARI, M
    ZITO, JL
    GOLD, BI
    LIEBERMAN, JA
    BORENSTEIN, MT
    HERMAN, PG
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 1990, 25 (07) : 798 - 805
  • [6] In vitro measurement of kidney size: Comparison of ultrasonography and MRI
    Bakker, J
    Olree, M
    Kaatee, R
    de Lange, EE
    Beek, FJA
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1998, 24 (05) : 683 - 688
  • [7] BARTRUM R J JR, 1974, Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, V2, P281, DOI 10.1002/jcu.1870020404
  • [8] RELIABILITY OF IN-VIVO VOLUME MEASURES OF HIPPOCAMPUS AND OTHER BRAIN STRUCTURES USING MRI
    BARTZOKIS, G
    MINTZ, J
    MARX, P
    OSBORN, D
    GUTKIND, D
    CHIANG, F
    PHELAN, CK
    MARDER, SR
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 1993, 11 (07) : 993 - 1006
  • [9] VOLUME MEASUREMENT BY ULTRASONIC TRANSVERSE OR SAGITTAL CROSS-SECTIONAL SCANNING
    BASSET, O
    GIMENEZ, G
    MESTAS, JL
    CATHIGNOL, D
    DEVONEC, M
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1991, 17 (03) : 291 - 296
  • [10] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310