La Radiologia medica · 2009
Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in acute pyelonephritis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Martina M C, Campanino P P, Caraffo F, Marcuccio C, Gunetti F, Colla L, Cassinis M C, Gandini G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the role and clinical impact of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and follow-up of acute pyelonephritis (APN).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 442 consecutive renal MRI examinations (279 diagnostic and 163 follow-up) performed in 285 patients (mean age 42.17 years), 35 of whom were kidney transplant recipients with a clinical suspicion of APN.
RESULTS: MRI showed signal abnormalities suggestive of APN in 125/244 (51.2%) patients with native kidneys. Except for two examinations performed without paramagnetic contrast material, the inflammatory foci appeared as areas of nonenhancement: single in 39/123 cases, multiple in 84/123, unilateral in 60/84 and bilateral in 24/84. Abscesses were present in 40/123 (32.5%) positive cases. During follow-up, we observed complete normalisation of MRI signs in 86/103 patients; 17/103 (16.5%) cases evolved into fibrosis and scarring. In 15/35 (42.8%) patients with transplanted kidney, MRI was positive for APN.
CONCLUSIONS: Renal MRI is an effective tool for the diagnosis and follow-up of APN both in patients not at risk and those at higher risk, such as those with a transplanted kidney. The high costs of the examination are offset by better treatment planning and early complication detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 442 consecutive renal MRI examinations (279 diagnostic and 163 follow-up) performed in 285 patients (mean age 42.17 years), 35 of whom were kidney transplant recipients with a clinical suspicion of APN.
RESULTS: MRI showed signal abnormalities suggestive of APN in 125/244 (51.2%) patients with native kidneys. Except for two examinations performed without paramagnetic contrast material, the inflammatory foci appeared as areas of nonenhancement: single in 39/123 cases, multiple in 84/123, unilateral in 60/84 and bilateral in 24/84. Abscesses were present in 40/123 (32.5%) positive cases. During follow-up, we observed complete normalisation of MRI signs in 86/103 patients; 17/103 (16.5%) cases evolved into fibrosis and scarring. In 15/35 (42.8%) patients with transplanted kidney, MRI was positive for APN.
CONCLUSIONS: Renal MRI is an effective tool for the diagnosis and follow-up of APN both in patients not at risk and those at higher risk, such as those with a transplanted kidney. The high costs of the examination are offset by better treatment planning and early complication detection.