<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://imcjms.com/assets/rss.css" ?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
    <title>IMC Journal of Medical Science</title>
    <link>https://imcjms.com</link>
    <description>Ibrahim Medical College Journal of Medical Science</description>

                        <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Comparison
of four different multi-detector computed tomography based split renal function
(SRF) evaluation methods and their correlation with nuclear scintigraphy
derived SRF for functional assessment of potential living renal donors]]></title>

                                    <author><![CDATA[Sarfraz Ahmad]]></author>
                                    <author><![CDATA[Raghunandan Prasad]]></author>
                                    <author><![CDATA[Hira Lal]]></author>
                                    <author><![CDATA[Sukanta Barai]]></author>
                                    <author><![CDATA[Aneesh Srivastava]]></author>
                                    <author><![CDATA[S Danish Iqbaal*]]></author>
                
                <link data-url="https://imcjms.com/registration/journal_full_text/595">
    https://imcjms.com/registration/journal_full_text/595
</link>
                <pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2026 12:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
                <category><![CDATA[Original Article]]></category>
                <comments><![CDATA[January 2026; Vol. 20(1):002]]></comments>
                <description>Abstract
Background and Objectives: Preoperative anatomical and functional
evaluation of donor kidneys is crucial for successful renal transplantation.
While multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography is the standard
imaging modality for anatomical assessment, nuclear scintigraphy using Technetium-99m
Diethylenetriamine Pentaacetate (Tc-99m DTPA) remains the gold standard for
evaluating split renal function (SRF). However, MDCT-based SRF estimation has
recently emerged as a viable alternative.
The aim of
this study is to compare four different MDCT-based SRF measurement techniques
and assess their correlation with SRF obtained from nuclear scintigraphy.
Materials and Methods:&amp;nbsp;This prospective study included
111 living kidney donors from 2019 to 2021 who underwent MDCT angiography. SRF
was estimated using four CT-based methods: total renal volume, cortical renal
volume, ellipsoid method (all using semi-automated ROI-Region of Interest), and
differential attenuation of contrast. All measurements were performed using an
Advantage Workstation (GE). The calculated SRFs were compared with Tc-99m
DTPA-based SRF using the Pearson correlation coefficient.
Results:&amp;nbsp;The mean age of donors was
44.32±10.25 years (range: 22–69). All four MDCT-based methods showed
statistically significant correlation with nuclear scintigraphy SRF. For the
right kidney, correlation coefficients (r) were 0.574 (total renal volume),
0.509 (cortical volume), 0.288 (ellipsoid method), and 0.323 (contrast
attenuation); for the left kidney, r-values were 0.513, 0.473, 0.262, and 0.251,
respectively (all p&amp;lt;0.001).
Conclusion:&amp;nbsp;MDCT-based SRF measurements
demonstrate a significant correlation with nuclear scintigraphy. Given that
MDCT angiography is routinely performed for anatomical evaluation, it can serve
as a comprehensive, single-modality approach for both anatomical and functional
assessment in living kidney donors.
January
2026; Vol. 20(1):002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55010/imcjms.20.002
*Correspondence: S Danish Iqbaal, Department of Community Medicine,
Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna-800014, Bihar, India. Email: iqbalsdalig@gmail.com
© 2026 The
Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License(CC BY 4.0).
&amp;nbsp;
Introduction
Renal transplantation
has emerged as the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage renal
disease (ESRD). It improves the quality of life and reduces the mortality risk
of most patients as compared to the other available alternative treatments like
maintenance hemodialysis (MHD)&amp;nbsp;[1].&amp;nbsp;
For successful
renal transplantation, comprehensive preoperative anatomical and functional
evaluation of the kidneys of potential living donors is of paramount importance,
along with genetic workup&amp;nbsp;[2].&amp;nbsp;
Out of both
kidneys from a living donor, the kidney to be harvested is decided by the
principle of the nephron mass hypothesis, which suggests that the larger or
more dominant kidney should remain with the donor. However, there are no
universally recommended guidelines as to what difference in volume or
functional asymmetry is acceptable when selecting an individual for living
donor nephrectomy. Some centers have used a 60/40 split as a relative
contraindication to donation&amp;nbsp;[3].
Currently,
multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) renal angiography is considered an
investigation of choice for anatomical evaluation of kidneys and their vascular
mapping, including anatomical variations, which are crucial for successful
harvest and renal transplant. For functional assessments like glomerular
filtration rate (GFR) and split renal function (SRF), nuclear scintigraphy is
considered the gold standard.
In recent decades,
several studies have shown that MDCT can also be used as an effective tool for
measuring SRF in kidneys. MDCT can be used to measure kidney volume (total
renal volume and cortical renal volume). And by volumes, we can calculate the
SRF of kidneys, as volume reflects the split renal function.
There are
various MDCT-based SRF estimation techniques that have been found to be as
sensitive as nuclear scintigraphy&amp;nbsp;[4,5]. CT volumetry methods such as
ellipsoid volumetry, total parenchymal volumetry, and renal cortex volumetry
have been studied in detail and have been found effective methods for
estimating SRF&amp;nbsp;[6].
The purpose
of this study is to compare MDCT-calculated SRF with nuclear
scintigraphy-measured SRF.
&amp;nbsp;
Materials and Methods
This
prospective analytical study was conducted at a tertiary care center in the
department of radiology in collaboration with the Department of
Nuclear Medicine, the Department of Urology, and the Department of Nephrology
at the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow,
during the periods of 2019 and 2021. 
Volunteer living kidney donors who were
already scheduled for MDCT imaging for anatomical and vascular evaluation were
recruited in the study after fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
There were 111 participants included in the study from 130 enrolled patients.
The 19 patients were excluded from the study as they didn&#039;t meet inclusion
criteria. After explaining the nature of the study and taking informed consent,
CT angiography was performed as per the protocol in Table-1. CT renal volumetry
(total renal volume and cortical renal volume) was done by the semi-automated
ROI method and the ellipsoid method at Advantage Workstation of GE by two
experienced radiologists with good training and experience of 3 years and 18
years, respectively. As per protocol in our institution for renal donor
evaluation, all these prospective voluntary kidney donors underwent a
Technetium-99m DTPA renal scan for SRF measurement preoperatively.
&amp;nbsp;
Table-1: CT
parameters for 128 channel Multi-detector Scanner
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
CT image acquisition: The MDCT was performed on a 128-channel
scanner (brilliance CT, Philips Medical System, Netherlands) at the
abovementioned institution.
All donors
were asked to drink 600 mL of plain water before CT examination, then asked to
empty their bladders before taking a CT scan. First, a pre-contrast MDCT of the
abdomen was obtained from the top of the left hemidiaphragm to the symphysis
pubis during end-inspiration. Through consistent
window settings, anatomical landmarks, and protocolized slice thickness, we have tried to minimize bias. A 100ml CM (Iohexol 350 mg/mL) at the rate of 4.0 mL/sec was
administered through an 18G cannula placed in the right antecubital fossa by a
power injector, followed by 20ml normal saline chaser. As per institutional
protocol, images were acquired in late arterial (corticomedullary phase) from
the top of the left hemidiaphragm to symphysis pubis after a delay of 15
seconds from the moment the HU (Hounsfield Units) of the subdiaphragmatic aorta
reaches up to 150 HU by the bolus tracking method.
Split renal function calculation: Renal volume was calculated by the
following methods:
The
semiautomated region of interest (ROI) tool was applied in the corticomedullary
phase, and the total volume of the kidney was calculated. The collecting
system, fat in the renal sinus, and renal space and renal occupying lesions of
water density were excluded by preset software thresholds. Using this volume,
SRF was calculated as:
SRF (R or L
kidney) = R or L kidney volume/R+L kidney volume.
Only renal
cortex volume was calculated in the corticomedullary phase. Using this volume,
SRF was calculated as SRF (R or L kidney) = R or L renal cortical volume (RCV)/R+L
RCV.
Renal
volume was calculated by the modified ellipsoid method (height x width x depth
x π/6). Depth and width were calculated in axial slices, and height was
calculated in the plane of the kidney in the sagittal plane, in the
corticomedullary phase of image acquisition and SRF was calculated as R or L
kidney= R or L kidney volume by the ellipsoid method/R +L kidney total volume
by the ellipsoid method.
The
difference between the mean attenuation in the arterial series (Art Att) and
the pre-contrast series (Pre Att) was multiplied by the mean of the respective
parenchymal volumes (Art Vol and Pre Vol) to measure the accumulation (Art Acc)
of contrast in each individual kidney during the arterial phase.&amp;nbsp;
Art
Acc=&amp;nbsp;(Art Att&amp;nbsp;−&amp;nbsp;Pre Att)&amp;nbsp;×&amp;nbsp;{(Art Vol +&amp;nbsp;Pre Vol)/2}
Once this
procedure was completed for both the left and right kidneys in the arterial
phase, the total arterial contrast accumulation (Art Acc) on the right was
divided by the sum of the total arterial contrast accumulation in both kidneys
to determine the relative clearance of the contrast media from the right kidney
in the arterial phase (Rt Art Split).
Rt Art
Split=&amp;nbsp;Rt Art Acc/ (Lt Art Acc +&amp;nbsp;Rt Art Acc).
Estimation of SRF by renal scintigraphy:&amp;nbsp;For differential renal function an
angiographic perfusion study was performed using 1 mCi (millicurie) of 99m
Tc-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) with donor in the supine position
and the scintillation camera detector positioned so that the bifurcation of the
aorta, iliac arteries, and urinary bladder in addition to the kidneys appeared
in the camera field. Three second sequential exposures were obtained as long as
the activity was clearly localized in the arterial system and kidney. This was
followed by a 40-sec static image to evaluate renal size and shape.
Subsequently, activity was quantified over the individual kidneys and bladder
by the use of either the split crystal or region.
Statistical analysis: The normality of the continuous variable
was assessed, and variables were considered normally distributed when the
standard normal variate (Z) value of the skewness was ±3.29. The continuous
variables were presented in mean± standard deviation/median (interquartile
range) and range (minimum-maximum). The categorical variables were presented in
frequency (percentage). A paired samples t test was used to test the change in
mean score between paired observations (pre-post). To compare the means between
two unpaired groups, independent samples t-tests were used, while to compare
the means among more than two groups, a one-way ANOVA test was used, followed
by multiple comparisons using the Bonferroni method. To compare the proportions
between the groups, a chi-square test was used. To assess the linear
relationship between two continuous variables, the Pearson correlation
coefficient was used. A p-value &amp;lt;0.001 was taken as statistically
significant. The data was analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences,
version 26 (SPSS-26, IBM, Chicago, USA).
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-1a: Cortical volume by the semiautomatic
region of interest tool
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-1b: Total volume by the semiautomatic
region of interest tool
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-1c: Width and thickness by ellipsoid
method
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-1d: Width and thickness by ellipsoid
method
Figure-1 (a,b,c and d): The process of
measuring of kidney volume, the semiautomatic region of interest (ROI) tool was
applied slice by slice on axial corticomedullary phase images (a) for cortical
volume and (b) for total volume. In ellipsoid method, width and thickness was taken
in axial plane, length in sagittal plane, (c) and (d).
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-2: Estimation of total
renal volume on coronal plane
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-3: Volume rendered images for total
volume calculation
&amp;nbsp;
Results 
A total of
111 donors were finally evaluated. For the 111 donors, age was 44.32±10.25
years (mean± SD), and the range was 22-69 years, while the median of the donors
was 44 years. Most of the donors belonged to the age group 41-50 years (n = 39,
35.14%), followed by 31-40 years (n = 35, 31.53%), while the least were in the
age group 61-70 years (n = 9, 8.04%). The majority of the participating donors
were females (n = 91, 82.0%). The mean creatinine of donors was 0.8 mg/dL with
a range of 0.7 to 1.4 mg/dL(Table-2,
Figures- 4a and 4b).
&amp;nbsp;
Table-2: Demographic characteristics of kidney donors
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-
4a: Pie chart showing age distribution and percentage
of the study participants
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-4b: Pie
chart showing sex distribution and percentage of
the study participants
&amp;nbsp;
SRF measurement using CT volumetry
methods:
Total renal volume (semiautomated ROI
method): The mean
(±SD) CT derived left split renal function (SRF) for renal donors was
50.47±2.49% and SRF ranged from 43.30% to 57%.
The mean
(±SD) CT derived right split renal function (SRF) for renal donors was
49.51±2.49% and SRF ranged from 43% to 56.70%.
Total renal volume (ellipsoid method): The mean (±SD) CT derived left split
renal function (SRF) for renal donors was 49.10±4.57% and SRF ranged from 35%
to 59.80%.
The mean
(±SD) CT derived right split renal function (SRF) for renal donors was
50.85±4.54% and SRF ranged from 40.20% to 65%.
Cortical renal volume method: The mean (±SD) CT derived left split
renal function (SRF) for renal donors was 50.27±2.49% and SRF ranged from 43%
to 57%.
The mean
(±SD) CT derived right split renal function (SRF) for renal donors was
49.65±2.59% and SRF ranged from 42.70% to 57%.
Differential attenuation of contrast
method: The mean
(±SD) CT derived left split renal function (SRF) for renal donors was
50.71±3.69% and SRF ranged from 35.50% to 59%.
The mean
(±SD) CT derived right split renal function (SRF) for renal donors was 49.30±3.67%
and SRF ranged from 41% to 64.50%.
SRF measurement using DTPA: The mean (±SD) DTPA derived left
split renal function for renal donors was 50.71±3.69%and SRF ranged from 35.5%
to 59%.
The mean
(±SD) CT derived right split renal function for renal donors was 50.19±3.49%
and SRF ranged from 38% to 60%.
Comparison
of SRF measured using CT volumetry methods and DTPA method: SRF measurement was
done using MDCT as well as DTPA of the donors for the left and right kidneys. Pearson
correlation coefficient was calculated for SRF measurements between MDCT
methods and DTPA method. Results indicated that there was a significant
correlation between the MDCT methods and DTPA method for the left kidney and
right kidney at P value &amp;lt;.01 (Table 3a and 3b, Fig 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d).
&amp;nbsp;
Table-3a: SRF
correlation between MDCT methods and DTPA method – Right kidney
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Table-3b: SRF
correlation between MDCT methods and DTPA method – Left kidney
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-5a: Scattered diagram showing correlation between semi-automate ROI method SRF and DTPA method SRF.
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-5b: Scatter diagram showing correlation
between ellipsoid method SRF and DTPA method SRF
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-5c: Scatter diagram showing correlation
between cortical renal volume method SRF and DTPA method SRF.
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Figure-5d: Scatter diagram showing correlation
between differential attenuation of contrast method SRF and DTPA method SRF
&amp;nbsp;
Discussion
At present, MDCT angiography is the gold
standard for anatomical evaluation of living renal donors. Namasivayam S et al.
[7]. For functional evaluations like GFR and SRF, nuclear scintigraphy is
considered the gold standard. Several studies have been published regarding the
use of MDCT to calculate SRF.
Several studies have also compared CT
parenchymal volumetry methods (total renal volume by semiautomated ROI method,
ellipsoid method, and cortical renal volume method) and the differential
attenuation of contrast method with nuclear scintigraphy to estimate SRF and
have shown moderate&amp;nbsp;correlation between the two techniques (Table-4),&amp;nbsp;suggesting
that MDCT can be an alternative to nuclear medicine scintigraphy for
determining&amp;nbsp;SRF. The
correlation coefficients for the best-performing method (3D ROI) are&amp;nbsp;0.574
(right) and 0.513 (left), which are&amp;nbsp;moderate&amp;nbsp;only, but for clinical
decision-making, particularly regarding donor selection, higher accuracy may be
warranted. While the correlation between MDCT-derived SRF and nuclear
scintigraphy was moderate, this reflects real-world clinical variability and
underscores the need for complementary evaluation in donor selection.
This will result in a reduction in radiation exposure to the patients, optimum
utilization of imaging resources, reduced preoperative workup cost, and a more
convenient algorithm for the potential donor.&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Table-4: Comparison between MDCT derived SRF and renal scintigraphy SRF of our
study with previous studies
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
In the present study, the correlation
coefficient was calculated for SRF measurements by MDCT volumetry methods and
the Tc99mDTPA method. The inter-observer variation was qualitatively minimal. Results
indicated that there was a statistically significant correlation between two
methods for the left and right kidneys. Future studies correlating MDCT-derived
SRF with post-donation renal function would further establish the method&#039;s
clinical utility.
&amp;nbsp;
Limitations
There are a
few limitations in this study, as the sample size is small and it is a
single-center study. A large sample size and multicenter study should be
conducted in the future to further explore the feasibility of MDCT as an alternative
to the nuclear scintigraphy method.&amp;nbsp;Agreement between MDCT and nuclear SRF is not
presented,&amp;nbsp;which&amp;nbsp;is critical to assess clinical interchangeability. Inter-observer
variability&amp;nbsp;with different levels of experience involved in volumetric
measurements&amp;nbsp;is not discussed.
&amp;nbsp;
Conclusion
The MDCT
angiography is routinely done for the anatomical assessment of living renal
donors. Different renal MDCT-based methods of SRF measurement have shown
significant correlation as compared to SRF measured by Nuclear Scintigraphy&amp;nbsp;Tc-99m DTPA
methods. We propose that MDCT
can be used as a one-stop solution for anatomical and functional evaluation of
renal donors and become an important modality in the coming future.
&amp;nbsp;
Conflict of interest
Authors have
no conflict of interest to declare.
&amp;nbsp;
Ethical statement
Ethical clearance was obtained from the
Institutional Ethics Committee of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of
Medical Sciences, Lucknow (IEC code: 2020-32-MD-114).
&amp;nbsp;
References
1.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Shahbazi F, Ranjbaran M, Karami-far S,
Soori H, Manesh HJ. Graft survival rate of renal transplantation during a
period of 10 years in Iran. J Res Med Sci. 2015; 20(11): 1046-52. doi:10.4103/1735-1995.172814.
2.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Letourneau JG, Day DL, Ascher NL,
Castaneda-Zuniga WR. Imaging of renal transplants. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
1988; 150(4): 833-838.
doi:10.2214/ajr.150.4.833.
3.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Alejandro
D, John P, Chandru P. Sundaram CP, Taber TE, Mujtaba MA, et al.Correlation between CT-based
measured renal volumes and nuclear-renography-based split renal function in
living kidney donors. Clinical diagnostic utility and practice patterns. Clin
Transplant. 2014; 28(6): 675-682.
doi:10.1111/ctr.12365.
4.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Brown SC, O&#039;reilly PH. Iohexol clearance
for the determination of glomerular filtration rate in clinical practice:
evidence for a new gold standard. J Urol. 1991; 146(3): 675-679. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37891-6.
5.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Gates GF. Split renal function testing
using Tc-99m DTPA. A rapid technique for determining differential glomerular
filtration. Clin Nucl Med. 1983; 8(9):
400-407. doi:10.1097/00003072-198309000-00003.
6.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Halleck F,
Diederichs G, Koehlitz T, Slowinski T, Engelken F, Liefeldt L, et al. Volume matters: CT-based
renal cortex volume measurement in the evaluation of living kidney donors. Transpl
Int. 2013; 26(12): 1208-1216.
doi:10.1111/tri.12195.
7.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Namasivayam S,
Kalra MK, Small WC, Torres WE, Mittal PK.&amp;nbsp;Multidetector row computed tomography evaluation of potential living
laparoscopic renal donors: the story so far. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol.
2006; 35(3): 102-114.
doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2006.02.005.
&amp;nbsp;
&amp;nbsp;
Cite this article
as:
Ahmad S, Prasad R, Lal H,&amp;nbsp;Barai S, Srivastava A, Iqbaal SD. Comparison of four different
multi-detector computed tomography based split renal function (SRF) evaluation
methods and their correlation with nuclear scintigraphy derived SRF for
functional assessment of potential living renal donors. IMC J Med Sci. 2026; 20(1):002.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55010/imcjms.20.002.</description>

            </item>
            
    <copyright>2026 Ibrahim Medical College. All rights reserved.</copyright>
</channel>
</rss>
