Advertisement

Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 677–682 | Cite as

Electron-beam CT as a diagnostic modality in pediatric nephrology and renal transplant surgery

  • Ulf H. BeierEmail author
  • Eunice John
  • Adisorn Lumpaopong
  • Jennifer G. Co
  • Vladimir Jelnin
  • Enrico Benedetti
  • Giuliano Testa
  • Ramona Bottke
  • Bruce I. Sharon
  • Carlos E. Ruiz
Original Article

Abstract

Electron-beam computed tomography is an imaging technology with a variety of medical applications, primarily in cardiology due to its sub-second acquisition time enabling visualization of a beating heart. Recently, this technique has also been introduced into other fields because of lower radiation exposure compared to traditional computed tomography, as well as the strengths of post-procedural three-dimensional visualization. This report evaluates electron-beam computed tomography as a diagnostic modality in pediatric nephrology patients. Seven patients reflecting typical clinical scenarios in pediatric nephrology were reviewed with regard to the value of electron-beam computed tomography and its contribution to the diagnostic workup. Electron-beam computed tomography is noninvasive and allows three-dimensional post-processing, enabling highly accurate images while requiring less radiation and acquisition time. It is very useful for clinical questions that require a detailed description of vascular and renal anatomy.

Keywords

Electron-beam computed tomography Renal imaging Renal artery stenosis Renal transplant Arteriovenous fistula Wilms tumor 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

EBCT

Electron-beam computed tomography

References

  1. 1.
    O’Neill W, Baumgarten DA (2003) Imaging. Am J Kidney Dis 42:601–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Golfieri R, Barone D (2002) Nephrologic diagnosis besides ultrasonography: which other imaging methods? Guideline on the use of radiologic methods. Arch Ital Urol Androl 74:222–2237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Enzweiler C, Becker CR, Bruning R, Felix R, Georgi M, Knollmann FD, Lehmann KJ, Lembcke A, Reiser MF, Rogalla P, Schoepf UJ, Taupitz M, Weisser G, Wiese TH, Hamm B (2004) Value of electron beam tomography (EBT). Rofo 176:1566–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Talisetti A, Jelnin V, Ruiz C, John E, Benedetti E, Testa G, Holterman AX, Holterman MJ (2004) Electron beam CT scan is a valuable and safe imaging tool for the pediatric surgical patient. J Pediatr Surg 39:1859–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tepe S, Memisoglu E, Kural AR (2004) Three-dimensional noninvasive contrast-enhanced electron beam tomography angiography of the kidneys: adjunctive use in medical and surgical management. Clin Imaging 28:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yildiz A, Tepe S, Oflaz H, Yazici H, Pusuroglu H, Besler M, Ark E, Erzengin F (2004) Carotid atherosclerosis is a predictor of coronary calcification in chronic haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 19:885–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yildiz A, Memisoglu E, Oflaz H, Yazici H, Pusuroglu H, Akkaya V, Erzengin F, Tepe S (2005) Atherosclerosis and vascular calcification are independent predictors of left ventricular hypertrophy in chronic haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant 20:760–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vasbinder G, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, Kroon AA, Maki JH, Leiner T, Beek FJ, Korst MB, Flobbe K, de Haan MW, van Zwam WH, Postma CT, Hunink MG, de Leeuw PW, van Engelshoven JM, Renal Artery Diagnostic Imaging Study in Hypertension (RADISH) study group (2004) Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Ann Intern Med 141:674–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boudewijn G, Vasbinder C, Nelemans PJ (2005) Accuracy of computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for diagnosing renal artery stenosis. Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther 17:180Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Young N, Chi KK, Ajaka J, McKay L, O’Neill D, Wong KP (2002) Complications with outpatient angiography and interventional procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 25:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leiner T, de Haan MW, Nelemans PJ, van Engelshoven JM, Vasbinder GB (2005) Contemporary imaging techniques for the diagnosis of renal artery stenosis. Eur Radiol 15:2219–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bloch M, Basile J (2004) Clinical insights into the diagnosis and management of renovascular disease. An evidence-based review. Minerva Med 95:357–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laissy JP, Sebban V, Deux JF, Huart V, Mousseaux E (2004) Noninvasive coronary artery imaging: CT and MR. J Radiol 85:1798–1808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gritsch H (2005) Update on kidney transplantation for the urologist. Curr Urol Rep 6:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Akbar S, Jafri SZ, Amendola MA, Madrazo BL, Salem R, Bis KG (2005) Complications of renal transplantation. Radiographics 25:1335–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baxter G (2003) Imaging in renal transplantation. Ultrasound Q 19:123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goel M, LaPerna L, Whitelaw S, Modlin CS, Flechner SM, Goldfarb DA (2005) Current management of transplant renal artery stenosis: clinical utility of duplex Doppler ultrasonography. Urology 66:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lockhart M, Robbin M (2001) Hemodialysis access ultrasound. Ultrasound Q 17:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldstein S, Smith CM, Currier H (2003) Noninvasive interventions to decrease hospitalization and associated costs for pediatric patients receiving hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:2127–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burgos F, Pascual J, Marcen R, Garcia-Navas R, Gomez V, Ortuno J (2004) The role of imaging techniques in renal transplantation. World J Urol 22:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zachaus M, Herrmann V, Plehn A, Langer T, Podhaisky H (2005) Sonographic findings in the diagnostic course of vascular access for hemodialysis. Med Klin (Munich) 100:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiner S (2005) Is medical radiation exposure a public health concern? The downside to technological advances in computed tomography. AHIP Cover 46:52–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller R (1995) Special susceptibility of the child to certain radiation-induced cancers. Environ Health Perspect 103:41–44PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Budoff M, Achenbach S, Duerinckx A (2003) Clinical utility of computed tomography and magnetic resonance techniques for noninvasive coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:1867–1878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morin R, Gerber TC, McCollough CH (2003) Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 107:917–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cote C, Notterman DA, Karl HW, Weinberg JA, McCloskey C (2000) Adverse sedation events in pediatrics:a critical incident analysis of contributing factors. Pediatrics 105:805–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulf H. Beier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eunice John
    • 1
  • Adisorn Lumpaopong
    • 1
  • Jennifer G. Co
    • 1
  • Vladimir Jelnin
    • 2
  • Enrico Benedetti
    • 3
  • Giuliano Testa
    • 3
  • Ramona Bottke
    • 1
  • Bruce I. Sharon
    • 4
  • Carlos E. Ruiz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PediatricsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of PediatricsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Division of Transplantation, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Division of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Department of PediatricsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations