8 research outputs found

    MR urography achieves comparable performance compared to CT urography.

    No full text
    <p>Three-dimensional Volume Rendering reconstruction of the urinary tract against a faded background from the images obtained with CT urography (A) and MR urography (B) excretory phases.MR urography achieved a comparable diagnostic performance.</p

    Artefacts encountered during imaging.

    No full text
    <p>The hydration protocol incorporated into the computed tomography resulted in better dilatation of the renal cavities as seen in image A (axial CT) compared to magnetic resonance excretory urography (MRU, image B), but occasionally at the expense of a contrast layering effect (Area between arrows). A susceptibility artefact due to the presence of a metallic sterilization clip in the MRU (image C, arrow) results in a void signal area. The clip produced no artefacts at CT (image D, thick arrow) and thin arrows show the position of distal ureters. The artefact at MRU impaired the visibility of a short ureteral segment as seen in the volume reconstruction MRU image E (arrow).</p

    The value of MR imaging at different time intervals.

    No full text
    <p>MR urography maximum intensity projections at 5 min (A), 10 min (B) and 15 min intervals after the administration of contrast show no difference in visualization of the upper urinary tract (UUT) at MR-combined different time intervals. Different segments can be better visualized at different time intervals therefore improving the overall UUT visibility and provided comparable performance with CT urography (D, volume rendering reconstruction).</p

    Flow chart.

    No full text
    <p>Flow chart of study patients, indications for imaging and results as determined by clinical evaluation, the results of imaging studies and the final histopathological diagnosis. (UC = Urothelial carcinoma; RCC = Renal Cell Carcinoma).</p
    corecore