• Users Online: 272
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 259-263

Comparison of automatic depth correction versus manual depth correction in the calculation of glomerular filtration rate in gates renal processing of diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid renogram in prospective renal donors


1 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Department of Nephrology, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Tekchand Kalawat
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijot.ijot_14_19

Get Permissions

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) obtained by gates method of renal processing using automated system generated method (ASGM) of depth correction with manual depth correction method (MDCM), in prospective renal donors using 99m-Tc diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) scintigraphy. Materials and Methods: Prospective interventional study involving 20 voluntary renal donors of age 26–65 years were included. 99m-Tc DTPA renograms were acquired by dynamic acquisition for 30 min. Presyringe and postsyringe counts, prevoid and postvoid images, and both sides of lateral images (for manual depth correction) were acquired. GFR was calculated by Gates renal processing with the depth correction both by ASGM and MDCM methods. Results: The mean depth of right and left kidneys calculated by MDCM and ASGM were 7.2 ± 1.1 and 6.4 ± 1.1 and 7.0 ± 1.2 and 6 ± 1.2, respectively. The mean total GFR calculated by Gate's Method using MDCM and ASGM was 96.2 ± 15.4 and 82.0 ± 11.5. There was a statistically significant difference in the depth correction of both kidneys and improvement in total GFR values by MDCM methods compared to the ASGM method. Conclusion: There was a significant difference in depth and GFR values, calculated from MDCM compared to ASGM. Hence, the MDCM is better in calculating GFR for renal donors, especially when using low-energy high-resolution collimators, as full-width half-maximum varies considerably for every centimeter of the distance of the source from the collimator.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed377    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded94    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal