Imaging of the kidneys and MR urography at 3T

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511978968.014

Chapter 12 - Imaging of the kidneys and MR urography at 3T

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011

John R. Leyendecker

Edited by

Ihab R. Kamel and

Elmar M. Merkle

Show author details

Ihab R. Kamel: Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Elmar M. Merkle: Affiliation:
Duke University School of Medicine, North Carolina

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The use of MR imaging for assessment of the urinary tract is not a new concept. However, MR imaging of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder remains a seldom performed technique at many medical centers, in part due to the dominant role computed tomography (CT) has played for the evaluation of urinary tract neoplasms and stone disease. Growing interest in medical radiation dose reduction coupled with advances in MR imaging technology has stimulated interest in renal MR imaging and MR urography. While contrast resolution has been a major advantage of MR imaging over other imaging modalities for many body applications, the limited temporal and spatial resolution of MR imaging, in addition to its relative insensitivity for detecting calcifications, have impeded the widespread adoption of MR imaging for urinary tract imaging.

Type: Chapter
Information: Body MR Imaging at 3 Tesla , pp. 164 - 177

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978968.014 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bosniak, MAThe current radiological approach to renal cystsRadiology 1986 158 1CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Israel, GMHindman, NBosniak, MAEvaluation of cystic renal masses: comparison of CT and MR imaging by using the Bosniak classification systemRadiology 2004 231 365CrossRef Google Scholar

Stanisz, GJOdrobina, EEPun, JT1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3TMagn Reson Med 2005 54 507CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

de Bazelaire, CMDuhamel, GDRofsky, NMAlsop, DCMR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary resultsRadiology 2004 230 652CrossRef Google Scholar

Cornfeld, DWeinreb, JSimple changes to 1.5-T MRI abdomen and pelvis protocols to optimize results at 3 TAJR Am J Roentgenol 2008 190 W140CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Sun, MRNgo, LGenega, EMRenal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes – correlation with pathologic findingsRadiology 2009 250 793CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Goncalves Neto, JAAltun, EElazzazi, MEnhancement of abdominal organs on hepatic arterial phase: quantitative comparison between 1.5- and 3.0-T magnetic resonance imagingMagn Reson Imaging 2010 28 47CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mürtz, PKrautmacher, CTräber, FDiffusion-weighted whole-body MR imaging with background body signal suppression: a feasibility study at 3.0 TeslaEur Radiol 2007 17 3031CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Maril, NRosen, YReynolds, GHSodium MRI of the human kidney at 3 TeslaMagn Reson Med 2006 56 1229CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gloviczki, MLGlockner, JGomez, SIComparison of 1.5 and 3 T BOLD MR to study oxygenation of kidney cortex and medulla in human renovascular diseaseInvest Radiol 2009 44 566CrossRef Google Scholar

Notohamiprodjo, MDietrich, OHorger, WDiffusion tensor imaging (DTI) of the kidney at 3 tesla-feasibility, protocol evaluation and comparison to 1.5 TeslaInvest Radiol 2010 45 245CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Michaely, HJKramer, HOesingmann, NIntraindividual comparison of MR-renal perfusion imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 TInvest Radiol 2007 42 406CrossRef Google Scholar

Coville, JAKilleen, RPBuckley, ODoes a full bladder aid upper tract visualization in magnetic resonance urography?Australas Radiol 2007 51 362CrossRef Google Scholar

Merkle, EMDale, BMPaulson, EKAbdominal MR imaging at 3TMagn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006 14 17CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nolte-Ernsting, CCBucker, AAdam, GBGadolinium-enhanced excretory MR urography after low-dose diuretic injection: comparison with conventional excretory urographyRadiology 1998 209 147CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ergen, FBHussain, HKCarlos, RC3D excretory MR urography: improved image quality with intravenous saline and diuretic administrationJ Magn Reson Imaging 2007 25 783CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Reiger, MNolte-Ernsting, CAdam, GKemper, JIntraindividual comparison of image quality in MR urography at 1.5 and 3 Tesla in an animal modelRofo 2008 180 915Google Scholar

Sudah, MVanninen, RPartanen, KMR urography in evaluation of acute flank pain: T2-weighted sequences and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional FLASH compared with urographyAJR Am J Roentgenol 2001 176 105CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Takahashi, NKawashima, AGlockner, JFSmall (2-cm) upper-tract urothelial carcinoma: evaluation with gadolinium-enhanced three dimensional spoiled gradient-recalled echo MR urographyRadiology 2008 247 451CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lee, KSZeikus, EDeWolf, WCRofsky, NMPedrosa, IMR urography versus retrograde pyelography/ureteroscopy for the exclusion of upper urinary tract malignancyClin Radiol 2010 65 185CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed