• 1.

    Rademacher N. Diagnostic imaging of the urinary tract. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2019;49(2):261286. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2018.10.006

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Fox AJ, Sharma A, Secrest SA. Computed tomographic excretory urography features of intramural ectopic ureters in 10 dogs. J Small Anim Pract. 2016;57(4):210213.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Secrest S, Bugbee A, Waller K, Jiménez DA. Comparison of transverse computed tomographic excretory urography images and maximum intensity projection images for diagnosing ectopic ureters in dogs. VetRadiol Ultrasound. 2017;58(2):163168. doi: 10.1111/vru.12461

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Specchi S, Lacava G, d’Anjou M-A, Zini E, Auriemma E. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous antegrade pyelography with computed tomography for the diagnosis of spontaneous partial ureteral rupture in a dog. Can Vet J. 2012;53(11):11871190.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Secrest S, Britt L, Cook C. Imaging diagnosis—bilateral orthotopic ureteroceles in a dog. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2011;52(4):448450. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2011.01807.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Adin CA, Herrgesell EJ, Nyland TG, et al. Antegrade pyelography for suspected ureteral obstruction in cats: 11 cases (1995–2001). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003;222(11):15761581.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Lee N, Choi M, Keh S, et al. Bilateral congenital ureteral strictures in a young cat. Can Vet J. 2014;55(9):841844.

  • 8.

    d’Anjou M-A, Penninck D. Kidneys and ureters. In: Penninck D, d’Anjou M-A, eds. Atlas of Small Animal Ultrasonography. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2015:331362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Seiler GS. Kidney and ureters. In: Thrall DE, ed. Textbook of Veterinary Diagnostic Radiology. 7th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018:823844.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Kawashima A, Glockner JF, King BF Jr. CT urography and MR urography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2003;41(5):945961.

  • 11.

    Cheng K, Cassidy F, Aganovic L, Taddonio M, Vahdat N. CT urography: how to optimize the technique. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(12):37863799.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Samii VF, McLoughlin MA, Mattoon JS, et al. Digital fluoroscopic excretory urography, digital fluoroscopic urethrography, helical computed tomography, and cystoscopy in 24 dogs with suspected ureteral ectopia. J Vet Intern Med. 2004;18(3):271281.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Lee S-K, Kim C, Yoon S, Choi J. Effect of contrast medium injection rate on computed tomography-derived renal perfusion estimates obtained with the maximum slope method in healthy Beagles. Am J Vet Res. 2019;80(2):168173.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Chang J, Kim S, Jung J, et al. Assessment of glomerular filtration rate with dynamic computed tomography in normal Beagle dogs. J Vet Sci. 2011;12(4):393399.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Potenta SE, D’Agostino R, Sternberg KM, Tatsumi K, Perusse K. CT urography for evaluation of the ureter. Radiographics. 2015;35(3):709726.

  • 16.

    Nolte-Ernsting C, Cowan N. Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(12):26702686. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0386-z

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Barthez PY, Begon D, Delisle F. Effect of contrast medium dose and image acquisition timing on ureteral opacification in the normal dog as assessed by computed tomography. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 1998;39(6):524527.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Nolte-Ernsting CC, Tacke J, Adam GB, et al. Diuretic-enhanced gadolinium excretory MR urography: comparison of conventional gradient-echo sequences and echo-planar imaging. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(1):1827.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Sudah M, Masarwah A, Kainulainen S, et al. Comprehensive MR urography protocol: equally good diagnostic performance and enhanced visibility of the upper urinary tract compared to triple-phase CT urography. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158673. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158673

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Bafaraj SM. Value of magnetic resonance urography versus computerized tomography urography (CTU) in evaluation of obstructive uropathy: an observational study. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2018;14(1):129134.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Makada M, Thummar K. Correlation and comparison of CT Urography and non contrast MR urography in evaluation of non-neoplastic urinary tract lesions—a study of 32 patients. J Res Dedical Dent Sci. 2016;4:132136.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Martingano P, Cavallaro MFM, Bertolotto M, Stacul F, Ukmar M, Assunta Cova M. Magnetic resonance urography vs computed tomography urography in the evaluation of patients with haematuria. Radiol Med (Torino). 2013;118(7):11841198.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Rouvière O, Cornelis F, Brunelle S, et al. Imaging protocols for renal multiparametric MRI and MR urography: results of a consensus conference from the French Society of Genitourinary Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(4):21032114. doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06530-z

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Leyendecker JR, Barnes CE, Zagoria RJ. MR urography: techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2008;28(1):2346; discussion 46-7. doi: 10.1148/rg.281075077

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES Jr. What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology. 2009;250(2):309323.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Sehic A, Julardzija F, Vegar-Zubovic S, Sefic-Pasic I. Advantages of T2 weighted three dimensional and T1 weighted three dimensional contrast medium enhanced magnetic resonance urography in examination of the child population. Acta Inform Med. 2017;25(1):2427.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    O’Connor OJ, McLaughlin P, Maher MM. MR urography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):W201W206. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.4176

  • 28.

    Roy C, Ohana M, Host P, et al. MR urography (MRU) of non-dilated ureter with diuretic administration: static fluid 2D FSE T2-weighted versus 3D gadolinium T1-weighted GE excretory MR. Eur J Radiol Open. 2014;1:613. doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2014.08.001

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Hughes J, Jan W, Goodie J, Lund R, Rankin S. MR urography: evaluation of different techniques in non-dilated tracts. Clin Radiol. 2002;57(11):989994.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Abreu-Gomez J, Udare A, Shanbhogue KP, Schieda N. Update on MR urography (MRU): technique and clinical applications. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(12):38003810.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Nolte-Ernsting C. Excretory system. In: Gourtsoyiannis NC, ed. Clinical MRI of the Abdomen: Why, How, When. Springer Science & Business Media; 2011:404425.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Childs DD, Leyendecker JR, Gianini J, Hall C. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography at 3T: clinical feasibility. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013;37(1):2936.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Khrichenko D, Saul D, Adeb M, et al. Intra-and inter-observer variability of functional MR urography (fMRU) assessment in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(5):666673. doi: 10.1007/s00247-015-3532-4

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Duconseille AC, Louvet A, Lazard P, Valentin S, Molho M. Imaging diagnosis—left retrocaval ureter and transposition of the caudal vena cava in a dog. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2010;51(1):5256.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35.

    Buhaescu I, Izzedine H. Gadolinium-induced nephrotoxicity. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62(7):11131118. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2007.01582.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Muthusami P, Bhuvaneswari V, Elangovan S, Ramesh A. The role of static magnetic resonance urography in the evaluation of obstructive uropathy. Urology. 2013;81(3):623627. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.10.051

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Chidambaram PK, Mayavan M, Vinayagam S, Aiyappan SK. Comparison of conventional urogram and magnetic resonance urography in dilated ureter. Int J Anat Radiol Surg. 2019;8(4):RO12RO16.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Dickerson EC, Dillman JR, Smith EA, DiPietro MA, Lebowitz RL, Darge K. Pediatric MR urography: indications, techniques, and approach to review. Radiographics. 2015;35(4):12081230.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Mehl J-N, Lüpke M, Brenner A-C, Dziallas P, Wefstaedt P, Seifert H. Measurement of single kidney glomerular filtration rate in dogs using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and the Rutland-Patlak plot technique. Acta Vet Scand. 2018;60(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s13028-018-0423-3

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40.

    Rozear L, Tidwell AS. Evaluation of the ureter and ureterovesicular junction using helical computed tomographic excretory urography in healthy dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2003;44(2):155164.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Secrest S, Essman S, Nagy J, Schultz L. Effects of furosemide on ureteral diameter and attenuation using computed tomographic excretory urography in normal dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound. 2013;54(1):1724. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8261.2012.01985.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Fonseca-Matheus JM, Pérez-García CC, Ginja MMD, Altónaga JR, Orden MA, Gonzalo-Orden JM. Contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance nephrography in healthy dogs. Vet J. 2011;189(3):341345. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.06.025

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Nolte-Ernsting CC, Bücker A, Adam GB, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced excretory MR urography after low-dose diuretic injection: comparison with conventional excretory urography. Radiology. 1998;209(1):147157.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Comparison of static-fluid or excretory magnetic resonance urography with computed tomography urography for visualization of nondilated renal pelvises and ureters in healthy Beagles

View More View Less
  • 1 College of Veterinary Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea
  • | 2 College of Veterinary Medicine and BK21 Plus Project Team, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea
  • | 3 National Primate Research Center (NPRC), Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB), Cheongju, South Korea
  • | 4 Futuristic Animal Resource & Research Center (FARRC), Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB), Cheongju, South Korea
  • | 5 College of Veterinary Medicine, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, South Korea
  • | 6 Department of Veterinary Medical Imaging, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usefulness of magnetic resonance urography (MRU) for the visualization of nondilated renal pelvises and ureters in dogs and to compare our findings for MRU versus CT urography (CTU).

ANIMALS

9 healthy Beagles.

PROCEDURES

Dogs underwent CTU, static-fluid MRU, and excretory MRU, with ≥ 7 days between procedures. Contrast medium was administered IV during CTU and excretory MRU, whereas urine in the urinary tract was an intrinsic contrast medium for static-fluid MRU. For each procedure, furosemide (1 mg/kg, IV) was administered, and reconstructed dorsal plane images were acquired 3 minutes (n = 2) and 7 minutes (2) later. Images were scored for visualization of those structures and for image quality, diameters of renal pelvises and ureters were measured, and results were compared across imaging techniques.

RESULTS

Excretory MRU and CTU allowed good visualization of the renal pelvises and ureters, whereas static-fluid MRU provided lower visualization of the ureters. Distention of the renal pelvises and ureters was good in excretory MRU and CTU. Distention of the ureters in static-fluid MRU was insufficient compared with that in CTU and excretory MRU. Distinct artifacts were not observed in CTU and excretory MRU images. Static-fluid MRU images had several mild motion artifacts.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our findings indicated that excretory MRU with furosemide administration was useful for visualizing nondilated renal pelvises and ureters of dogs in the present study. When performing MRU for the evaluation of dogs without urinary tract dilation, excretory MRU may be more suitable than static-fluid MRU.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usefulness of magnetic resonance urography (MRU) for the visualization of nondilated renal pelvises and ureters in dogs and to compare our findings for MRU versus CT urography (CTU).

ANIMALS

9 healthy Beagles.

PROCEDURES

Dogs underwent CTU, static-fluid MRU, and excretory MRU, with ≥ 7 days between procedures. Contrast medium was administered IV during CTU and excretory MRU, whereas urine in the urinary tract was an intrinsic contrast medium for static-fluid MRU. For each procedure, furosemide (1 mg/kg, IV) was administered, and reconstructed dorsal plane images were acquired 3 minutes (n = 2) and 7 minutes (2) later. Images were scored for visualization of those structures and for image quality, diameters of renal pelvises and ureters were measured, and results were compared across imaging techniques.

RESULTS

Excretory MRU and CTU allowed good visualization of the renal pelvises and ureters, whereas static-fluid MRU provided lower visualization of the ureters. Distention of the renal pelvises and ureters was good in excretory MRU and CTU. Distention of the ureters in static-fluid MRU was insufficient compared with that in CTU and excretory MRU. Distinct artifacts were not observed in CTU and excretory MRU images. Static-fluid MRU images had several mild motion artifacts.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our findings indicated that excretory MRU with furosemide administration was useful for visualizing nondilated renal pelvises and ureters of dogs in the present study. When performing MRU for the evaluation of dogs without urinary tract dilation, excretory MRU may be more suitable than static-fluid MRU.

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Choi (imsono@snu.ac.kr)