JCDR - Register at Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X
Internal Medicine Section DOI : 10.7860/JCDR/2020/44561.13873
Year : 2020 | Month : Jul | Volume : 14 | Issue : 07 Full Version Page : OC25 - OC29

Role of Multi-detector Computed Tomography Urography in Evaluation of Renal Tract Abnormalities

KR Shankar1, S Mythri2

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Radiology, SJIC, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Nephrology, Institute of Nephro-Urology, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.


NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: S Mythri, 926, 22nd Cross, 5th Main, Sector 7, HSR Layout, Bengaluru-560102, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: mythri.nish@gmail.com
Abstract

Introduction

Computed Tomography Urography (CTU) is currently the modality of choice for imaging the urinary tract. Advanced CTU allows a thorough evaluation of the kidneys, ureters, urinary bladder and other structures simultaneously. Common conditions investigated by means of CTU include renal calculi, renal cancer, congenital kidney and ureter abnormalities, and certain renal inflammatory conditions.

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) urography in diagnosing renal tract abnormalities and correlation of the imaging data with clinical features.

Materials and Methods

It was a descriptive study conducted between November 2017 and November 2019 involving fifty patients, aged 18-80 years with various renal abnormalities. This was a descriptive study involving both outpatients and inpatients. Triphasic examinations were carried out, including noncontrast, contrast enhanced and delayed images using a multidetector-row CT scanner. Chi-square and Fisher’s-Exact Test were used to assess the significance of study parameters.

Results

Of the 50 suspected cases, 48 (96%) had renal tract abnormalities. The most common diagnosed condition was urolithiasis (36%), followed by congenital abnormalities (24%), renal masses/cysts/infections (14%), and bladder pathology/collecting system abnormalities/postoperative complications (16%). Urolithiasis was characterised by severe abdominal pain. Patients having renal masses in the urinary tract exhibited haematuria and weight loss. In case of congenital renal abnormalities, the clinical features were not significantly correlated.

Conclusion

MDCT urography is a very useful tool for diagnosing renal tract abnormalities.

Keywords

Introduction

Intravenous (IV) urography has been conventionally used for imaging of the upper urinary tract. However, recently, this imaging technique has largely been replaced by CTU [1]. Some of the common conditions that are referred for a CTU investigation include renal calculi formation, haematuria, flank and abdominal pain, suspected renal or urothelial neoplasm, a variety of inflammatory conditions, and congenital anomalies of the kidneys and ureters [2].

The new generation CT scanners have better speed and spatial resolution. They have advanced multiplanar and volume-rendered image reconstruction capacity. This helps imaging of kidneys, ureters and urinary bladder at one go. Also, CTU is often used as a screening tool for imaging the urothelium in patients at high risk for developing bladder cancer [3].

The American Urological Association Best Practices Policy Guidelines recommend IV urography or CTU as the initial imaging investigation for patients with asymptomatic microscopic haematuria [3]. Importantly, the American College of Radiology has also recommended CTU for the evaluation of haematuria [3]. Moreover, clinically important extra-urinary findings can be found in some patients undergoing CTU. CTU is contraindicated in patients who cannot receive iodinated contrast media because of renal insufficiency, severe allergic reactions, or pregnancy [3].

CTU combines the advantages of excretory urography with cross-sectional imaging into a single investigation that is capable of accurately visualising the renal parenchyma, collecting system and ureters [4]. This technique is based on the acquisition of non-enhanced and enhanced CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis. It includes acquisition of thin section helical CT scans of the urinary tract during the excretory phase of enhancement. Multiplanar 2-Dimensional (2D) and 3-Dimensional (3D) reformation images are produced from axial source images during the excretory phase. CTU enables a single breath-hold inclusion of the whole urinary tract, faster imaging and the partial volume effect is reduced [5].

The primary aim of the study was to evaluate the role of MDCT urography in the diagnosis of renal tract abnormalities and to corelate clinical features with the imaging results.

Materials and Methods

This was a descriptive study that was conducted between November 2017 and November 2019, involving Fifty patients (29 male and 21 female, from outpatients, inpatients, and referral Departments of Rajarajeswari Medical College and Hospital and Institute of Nephro-urology, Bengaluru, India. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (RRJMC-RD-11/17-321) and informed consent was taken from all the study participants.

Inclusion criteria: Patients with suspected

Urinary tract calculi, infections

Renal parenchymal masses

Renal papillary or medullary abnormalities, collecting system abnormalities

Congenital anomalies of kidneys and ureters

Renal cystic diseases

Diseases of the urinary bladder and

Postoperative patients between 18 and 80 years of age

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients below 18 and above 80 years of age

Pregnant women

Renal failure patients

Cardiac failure patients

those with allergy to contrast media

Procedures

Triphasic examinations, including non-contrast, contrast enhanced and delayed imaging was carried out. Non-contrast imaging was carried out from the top of the kidneys through the bladder. The aim was to check for the presence of calculi, fat-containing lesions, parenchymal calcifications and to provide baseline attenuation for assessment of lesion enhancement. Contrast media was administered intravenously. After a delay of 90 to 100 seconds, scanning of the abdomen and pelvis was performed during the nephrographic phase. The final acquisition was obtained during the excretory phase after a delay of 12 to 15 minutes. During this phase, opacification and distention of the collecting systems, ureters and bladder was observed.

Scanning was carried out using a multi-detector row CT scanner (Siemens 128 slice). CT scans were obtained from the kidneys to the bladder using the following parameters: (i) collimator-5 mm; (ii) pitch- 1.5/2 Hz; and (iii) current- 120 mA. The thickness of the reconstructed images was 1 mm. A 3D reconstruction of the non-enhanced, nephrogenic phase and excretory phase were performed as and when required. The follow-up diagnosis was established on the basis of histopathologic findings or the findings of urologic procedures, such as cystoscopy, ureteroscopy or retrograde pyelography.

Statistical Analysis

In the present study, descriptive and inferential statistical analysis were carried out. Continuous measurements were presented as mean±SD (min-max) and categorical measurements were presented as number and percentage (%). A 5% level of significance was used in the present study. Chi-square and Fisher’s-Exact Test were used to assess the significance of study parameters on categorical scale between two or more groups.

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Version 18.0) and R environment (Version 3.2.2) were used for data analysis and MS Word and MS Excel were used for generating the graphs and tables. p-value <0.05 was regarded as moderately significant, while a p-value <0.01 was regarded as highly significant.

Results

Age Distribution

The study included patients aged between 18 and 80 years. Maximum number of patients were seen in the age group 31-40 years, consisting of 15 (30%) patients. This was followed by the age group 20-30 years 9 (18%) patients, making up 18% of all patients. The least number of patients were in the age group >70 years, consisting of only 2 (4%) patients. The average age of the patients was 41.84±16 years (mean±SD).

Clinical Symptoms

The presentation of clinical symptoms is mentioned in [Table/Fig-1]. Some of the patients presented with more than one symptoms. Forty patients (80%) complained of abdominal pain. Seventeen patients (34%) presented with haematuria, 12 patients (24%) had fever, while 4 patients (8%) reported loss of weight [Table/Fig-1].

Clinical symptoms of patients.

Clinical symptomsNo. of patientsPercent (%)
Abdominal pain4080
Fever1224
Weight loss48
Haematuria1734

Pathology

The pathological conditions that were studied included: (1) urolithiasis; (2) congenital anomalies; (3) infections; (4) renal masses; (5) cysts; and (6) others.

Urolithiasis

Urolithiasis was found in 18 out of 50 patients (36%) and was the most common pathology diagnosed. Calculi were identified in 8 patients (16%) on the left side (kidney/pelvi ureteric junction/ureter/vesico-ureteric Junction) and in 6 patients (12%) on the right side (kidney/pelvi ureteric junction/ureter/vesico-ureteric junction). Four patients (8%) were found to have calculi in the bladder.

Out of the 18 patients diagnosed with urolithiasis, 11 patients (22%) had renal calculi. Four patients (8%) had staghorn calculi (since the calculi resemble the horn of a stag or male deer), 3 patients (6%) had calculi in upper and lower calyx and 1 patient (2%) had calculi in the middle calyx.

Three patients (6%) had calculi in the pelvi ureteric junction, 3 patients (6%) had calculi in the ureter, 1 patient (2%) in the vesico ureteric junction and 2 patients (4%) in the bladder [Table/Fig-2].

Distribution of calculi in patients.

Presence/Location/Type of calculiNo. of patientsPercent (%)
No3264
Yes1836
Left816
Right612
Bladder48
Kidney
No3978
Yes1122
Staghorn48
Lower calyx36
Upper calyx36
Middle calyx12
Pelvi-ureteric junction
No4794
Yes36
Ureter
No4794
Yes36
Distal24
Proximal12
Vesico-ureteric junction
No4998
Yes12
Bladder
No4896
Yes24

Congenital Anomalies

Out of 50 patients, 38 (76%) did not have any congenital anomalies, while 12 patients (24%) had these anomalies. The most common congenital anomaly diagnosed was pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction, which was seen in 6 cases. Other congenital anomalies diagnosed were mega ureter, crossed fused ectopic kidney, and duplex collecting system.

Infections

Out of 50 patients, 43 (86%) did not have any infections. Seven patients (14%) had infection in the renal tract. The most common infection was acute pyelonephritis, which was diagnosed in 4 patients (57%). The remaining infections caused cystitis, which was diagnosed in 3 patients (43%).

Renal Masses

Renal masses were seen in 7 cases (14%), while 43 (86%) did not exhibit any masses. Out of the 7 cases, 4 patients (8%) had masses in their left kidney, 1 patient (2%) in the right kidney and 2 patients (4%) in their urinary bladder. Three of the 5 masses in the kidneys were histopathologically proven to be renal cell carcinoma and the bladder masses turned out to be transitional cell carcinoma. One patient exhibited angiomyolipoma.

Cysts

Cysts are membranous sacs or cavities within the body that have an abnormal character and contain fluids. Cysts were seen in 7 cases (14%), while 43 (86%) did not exhibit any cysts. Three patients (6%) showed cysts in their left kidney, 3 patients (6%) showed cysts in both kidneys (bilateral), and 1 patient (2%) showed cysts in the right kidney.

Others

Some of the other conditions in this category included collecting system abnormalities, papillary abnormalities, and urinary bladder pathology. Bladder pathologies included calculi formation, urothelial tumours, bladder diverticula, and bladder malignancies of various types. Bladder pathology was found in 6 patients (12%), collecting system abnormality (stricture) was found in 1 patient (2%) and 1 post-nephrectomy patient (2%) underwent CT. There were no cases of papillary abnormalities.

Secondary Signs and Incidental Findings

The secondary signs include hydronephrosis, hydroureteronephrosis and delayed renal excretion. Hydronephrosis/hydroureteronephrosis were found in 15 patients (30%) and delayed renal excretion was found in 2 patients (4%). Incidental findings which were not related with the renal tract, such as cholelithiasis, hepatosplenomegaly, uterine fibroids and ovarian cysts were found in 6 patients (12%) [Table/Fig-3].

Secondary signs and incidental findings.

ConditionNo. of patientsPercent (%)
Hydronephrosis/Hydroureteronephrosis1530
Delayed renal excretion24
Incidental findings612

Diagnosis

Of the 50 cases that were clinically suspected as having renal tract abnormalities, it was possible to correctly diagnose 48 patients (96%), using MDCT urography. The other 2 cases which were clinically suspected to have renal tract abnormality turned out to have no pathology on MDCT urography.

Among the 48 cases with renal tract abnormality, the most commonly diagnosed pathology was urolithiasis which was observed in 18 cases (36%). This was followed by congenital anomalies, which was observed in 12 cases (24%). Renal masses, infections and cysts accounted for 7 cases (14%) each. Other conditions, such as bladder pathology, collecting system abnormality and postoperative cases were observed in 16% of patients [Table/Fig-4].

Diagnosis of various conditions in patients.

DiagnosisNo. of patientsPercent (%)
Normal study24
Positive cases4896
Urolithiasis (calculi)1836
Congenital anomalies1224
Infection714
Mass714
Cysts714
Bladder pathology612
Collecting system abnormality12
Papillary abnormality--
Postoperative12

Correlation of Clinical Features in Patients with Urolithiasis

Among the patients referred for MDCT urography, pain was the only clinical symptom that had a significant correlation with the presence of urolithiasis [Table/Fig-5].

Clinical features associated with urolithiasis.

Clinical featuresPresence of urolithiasisTotal (n=50)p-value
No (n=32)Yes (n=18)
Pain22 (68.7%)18 (100%)40 (80%)0.009**
Fever8 (25%)4 (22.2%)12 (24%)1.000
Weight loss4 (12.5%)0 (0%)4 (8%)0.283
Haematuria9 (28.1 %)8 (44.4%)17 (34%)0.242

Chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test; **Highly significant


Correlation of Clinical Features in Patients Exhibiting Congenital Anomalies

Among the patients referred for MDCT urography, haematuria was the only clinical feature that had a significant correlation with the presence of congenital anomalies [Table/Fig-6].

Clinical features associated with congenital anomalies.

Clinical featuresCongenital anomalyTotal (n=50)p-value
No (n=38)Yes (n=12)
Pain31 (81.6%)9 (75%)40 (80%)0.686
Fever11 (28.9%)1 (8.3%)12 (24%)0.248
Weight loss4 (10.5%)-4 (8%)0.560
Haematuria16 (42.1%)1 (8.3%)17 (34%)0.039*

Chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test; *Moderately significant


Correlation of Clinical Features in Patients with Renal Masses

Among the patients referred for MDCT urography, weight loss and haematuria were the only two clinical features that had significant correlation with the presence of renal masses [Table/Fig-7].

Clinical features associated with renal masses.

Clinical featuresRenal massesTotal (n=50)p-value
No (n=43)Yes (n=7)
Pain35 (81.4%)5 (71.4%)40 (80%)0.616
Fever11 (25.6%)1 (14.3%)12 (24%)1.000
Weight loss-4 (57.1%)4 (8%)<0.001**
Haematuria12 (27.9%)5 (71.4%)17 (34%)0.037*

Chi-square/Fisher’s-exact test; *Moderately significant; **Highly significant


Discussion

The present study included 50 patients who were strongly suspected to have urinary tract abnormalities. Triphasic MDCT urography was carried out, which included non-contrast, contrast enhanced and delayed images. Non-contrast images extending from the top of the kidneys through the bladder were generated. Intravenous contrast media was administered and following a delay of 90-100 seconds, the abdomen and pelvis were scanned. The final acquisition was during the excretory phase after a delay of 12-15 minutes.

Urinary tract abnormalities were classified into urolithiasis, congenital anomalies, renal mass formation, infections, cyst formation, bladder pathology, collecting system abnormalities, papillary abnormalities, and postoperative patients. Secondary signs were noted, which included hydronephrosis/hydroureteronephrosis and delayed renal excretion. Incidental findings, which were not related to the renal tract, such as cholelithiasis, hepatosplenomegaly, uterine fibroids, and ovarian cysts were also recorded.

Clinical features were noted under four categories, which included abdominal pain, fever, weight loss and haematuria. Moreover, clinical features were correlated with the presence of urolithiasis, congenital anomalies and renal mass formation as they were the most commonly observed urinary tract abnormalities.

Urolithiasis is the formation of calcified stones or calculi within the urinary system. Calcification within the lumen of the urinary tract is known as nephrolithiasis, whereas intraparenchymal calcification is termed as nephrocalcinosis [6].

The congenital anomalies of the kidneys included horseshoe kidney, renal ectopia with or without crossed-fusion, hypertrophied column of Bertin, and renal agenesis. Anomalous kidneys may also have complications, such as duplicated ureters, stone disease, vesico-ureteric reflux, traumatic injury, and pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. These can all be detected by MDCT urography [7,8].

With regard to infections, pyelonephritis was the most common infection. Pyelonephritis is the inflammation of the kidneys as a result of bacterial infection. It exhibits a number of symptoms, including bacteriuria, pyrexia and flank pain. Pyelonephritis may occur due to ascending infection caused by Escherichia coli in 85% of cases or due to haematogenous seeding caused by Staphylococcus aureus in 15% of cases [9].

Renal masses can be benign and malignant. These may include renal cell carcinoma and angiomyolipoma, especially during the nephrographic phase. Other less common masses include renal lymphoma (primary or secondary), transitional cell carcinoma, multilocular cystic nephroma, oncocytoma, and metastatic disease [10]. The most common abnormality to be diagnosed was urolithiasis. The location and morphology of the calculi were noted. Pre-contrast phase of MDCT urography could correctly diagnose calculi in all cases of urolithiasis.

Retrospective comparison of the results of MDCT urography with other clinical results (pyeloureteroscopy, surgery or spontaneous passage of the calculi) and imaging examinations (retrograde pyelography or sonography) were performed.

The mean age of the patients in the present study was 41.84±16 years. This was correlated with studies carried out by Lin WC et al., and Caoili EM et al., [1,5]. There was no significant correlation between age and renal tract abnormalities in the present study.

Urolithiasis was the most common renal tract abnormality found in the present study, which was observed in 18 patients (36%). This was similar to the findings of the study conducted by Lin WC et al., [1], where 38% of the patients were diagnosed with urolithiasis. However, the study conducted by Caoili EM et al., found that only 8% of the patients had urolithiasis [5]. Kumar R et al., studied 50 patients with haematuria, out of which 20% had renal calculi [11]. In a study by Shamachar VK et al., renal calculi were the most common abnormality among the 100 patients studied for the evaluation of ureter abnormalities [12].

In the present study, all the 18 patients with urolithiasis were diagnosed in the pre-contrast phase of MDCT urography. Most of the patients diagnosed with urolithiasis were between 30-50 years of age. In the study by Kumar R et al., renal calculi were more common among younger age group of patients [11]. Similar results were shown in the study by Shamachar VK et al., [12]. Hundred patients were studied and renal calculi were found more commonly in younger age group. Abdominal pain was the only statistically significant clinical feature associated with urolithiasis in the present study. In the other studies, there was no correlation between clinical symptoms and diagnosis.

In the present study, congenital anomalies were diagnosed in 12 patients (24%), which were higher compared to the studies conducted by Lin WC et al., and Caoili EM et al., [1,5]. The most common age group in which congenital anomalies occurred in the present study was 31-40 years. The most common congenital anomaly detected in the present study was pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction, which was observed in 6 out of 12 cases. There was no significant clinical feature that correlated with the congenital anomalies in the present study. In the study by Shamachar VK et al., the most common ureter anomalies were pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction and vesico-ureteric reflux [12].

In the present study, 14% of patients had renal masses, which is almost similar to the other studies conducted by Lin WC et al., and Caoili EM et al., [1,5]. In the study by Kumar R et al., 16% of patients with haematuria had urothelial carcinoma and 6% of patients with haematuria had renal cell carcinoma [11]. Haematuria and loss of weight were the only two statistically significant clinical features that were associated with malignancy in the present study. Renal mass formation was confirmed by postoperative follow-up of the patients.

Limitation(s)

The sample size was small, compared to the spectrum of renal tract abnormalities that were present. Not all patients with suspected renal tract abnormalities could undergo MDCT urography due to financial constraints. As pregnant women were excluded from the study, the role of MDCT urography in these women could not be evaluated. Since, the study included patients between 18 and 80 years of age, abnormalities diagnosed before 18 years and after 80 years could not be assessed.

Conclusion(s)

Based on the study findings, it may be concluded that MDCT urography is a very powerful and useful diagnostic tool for the detection and evaluation of renal tract abnormalities.

References

[1]Lin WC, Wang JH, Wei CJ, Chang CY, Assessment of CT urography in the diagnosis of urinary tract abnormalities J Chin Med Assoc 2004 67(2):73-78.  [Google Scholar]

[2]Albani JM, Ciaschini MW, Streem SB, Herts BR, Angermeier KW, The role of computerized tomographic urography in the initial evaluation of hematuria J Urol 2007 177(2):644-48.10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.06517222650  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[3]Silverman SG, Leyendecker JR, Amis ES, What is the current role of CT urography and MR urography in the evaluation of the urinary tract? Radiology 2009 250(2):309-23.10.1148/radiol.250208053419188307  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[4]Noroozian M, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Cowan NC, Ellis JH, Multislice CT urography: State of the art Br J Radiol 2004 77 Spec No(1):S74-86.10.1259/bjr/1347828115546844  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[5]Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, Platt JF, Francis IR, Faerber GJ, Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography Radiology 2002 222(2):353-60.10.1148/radiol.222201066711818599  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[6]Sheafor DH, Hertzberg BS, Freed KS, Carroll BA, Keogan MT, Paulson EK, Nonenhanced helical CT and US in the emergency evaluation of patients with renal colic: Prospective comparison Radiology 2000 217(3):792-97.10.1148/radiology.217.3.r00dc4179211110945  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[7]Silverman SG, Cohan RH, In: CT Urography: An Atlas 2007 1st EditionPhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaLippincott Williams and Wilkins  [Google Scholar]

[8]Federle MP, Jeffrey RB, Desser TS, Diagnostic Imaging: Abdomen 2004 Salt Lake City, UtahAmirsys  [Google Scholar]

[9]Adam A, Dixon A, Gillard J, Schaefer-Prokop C, Grainger RG, In: Grainger and Allison’s Diagnostic Radiology: A Textbook of Medical Imaging 2014 Vol 15th EditionLondonChurchill Livingstone:1863-83.  [Google Scholar]

[10]Jinzaki M, McTavish JD, Zou KH, Judy PF, Silverman SG, Evaluation of small (≤3 cm) renal masses with MDCT: benefits of thin overlapping reconstructions Am J Roentgenol 2004 183(1):223-28.10.2214/ajr.183.1.183022315208143  [Google Scholar]  [CrossRef]  [PubMed]

[11]Kumar R, Kumar Airon R, Mittal A, Singal R, Sharma K, Singal S, Evaluation of multidetector computed tomography in haematuria Maedica (Buchar) 2017 12(2):87-94.  [Google Scholar]

[12]Shamachar VK, Rangaswamy VKK, Kuri C, Raja B, Evaluation of imaging abnormalities of ureter using MDCT urography Int J Anat Radiol Surg 2017 6(2):RO01-07.  [Google Scholar]