Dimercaptosuccinic acid scintigraphy vs. ultrasound for renal parenchymal defects in children

Authors

  • Maryse Marceau-Grimard Division of Urology, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  • Audrey Marion Division of Urology, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  • Christian Côté Division of nuclear medicine, Department of medical imaging, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  • Stephane Bolduc Division of Urology, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  • Marcel Dumont Division of nuclear medicine, Department of medical imaging, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
  • Katherine Moore Division of Urology, CHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4257

Abstract

Introduction: Dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy is the gold standard in the evaluation of renal parenchymal defects and is widely used in the pediatric population. As more recent ultrasound equipment was purchased at our tertiary pediatric centre, our objective was to evaluate if renal ultrasound (US) results are equivalent or sufficient when compared to DMSA scintigraphy in the assessment of renal anomalies.

Methods: The charts of all 463 patients who underwent DMSA scintigraphy between January 2009 and May 2014 at our pediatric tertiary centre were reviewed. The objective was to look for correlation between US and DMSA scan results for renal scars/dysplasia. A hundred and sixty pediatric patients followed with US and DMSA scan for a total of 285 renal units remained for evaluation after exclusions. Timing of the exams, urinary tract infection (UTI), and indication for imaging were reviewed. Results with older (105 patients) and newer (55 patients) US equipment were compared.

Results: Among the 285 renal units evaluated, 39 (14%) had renal parenchymal defects shown by US and 87 (31%) by DMSA scintigraphy (sensitivity 36%, specificity 96%). The DMSA scan was normal for eight abnormal kidneys (3%) on US. The results were not statistically significant when compared to exams performed with newer or older US machines.

Conclusions: At our institution, US data are not sensitive enough to give reliable information about renal parenchymal defects, even with newer equipment. DMSA scintigraphy still remains mandatory for the evaluation of renal anomalies, but could be optional if the US exam indicates parenchymal defects.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2017-08-11

How to Cite

Marceau-Grimard, M., Marion, A., Côté, C., Bolduc, S., Dumont, M., & Moore, K. (2017). Dimercaptosuccinic acid scintigraphy vs. ultrasound for renal parenchymal defects in children. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 11(8), 260–4. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4257

Issue

Vol. 11 No. 8 (2017): CUAJ August

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.