It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) and nuclear renography are used to determine kidney procurement in living kidney donors (LKDs). The present study investigated which modality better predicts kidney function after donation. This study included 835 LKDs and they were divided into two subgroups based on whether the left–right dominance of kidney volume was concordant with kidney function (concordant group) or not (discordant group). The predictive value for post-donation kidney function between the two imaging modalities was compared at 1 month, 6 months, and > 1 year in total cohort, concordant, and discordant groups. Split kidney function (SKF) measured by both modalities showed significant correlation with each other at baseline. SKFs of remaining kidney measured using both modalities before donation showed significant correlation with eGFR (estimated glomerular filtration rate) after donation in the total cohort group and two subgroups, respectively. CT volumetry was superior to nuclear renography for predicting post-donation kidney function in the total cohort group and both subgroups. In the discordant subgroup, a higher tendency of kidney function recovery was observed when kidney procurement was determined based on CT volumetry. In conclusion, CT volumetry is preferred when determining procurement strategy especially when discordance is found between the two imaging modalities.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 The Catholic University of Korea, Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.411947.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0470 4224)
2 The Catholic University of Korea, Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.411947.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0470 4224); The Catholic University of Korea, Transplant Research Center, Convergent Research Consortium for Immunologic Disease, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.411947.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0470 4224)
3 The Catholic University of Korea, Department of Urology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea (GRID:grid.411947.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 0470 4224)