Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
Right arrow Articles by Kaufman, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hricak, H.
Right arrow Articles by Kaufman, L.

Radiology, Vol 146, 425-432, Copyright © 1983 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney

H Hricak, L Crooks, P Sheldon and L Kaufman

The role of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging of the kidney was analyzed in 18 persons (6 normal volunteers, 3 patients with pelvocaliectasis, 2 with peripelvic cysts, 1 with renal sinus lipomatosis, 3 with renal failure, 1 with glycogen storage disease, and 2 with polycystic kidney disease). Ultrasound and/or computed tomography (CT) studies were available for comparison in every case. In the normal kidney distinct anatomical structures were clearly differentiated by NMR. The best anatomical detail was obtained with spin echo (SE) imaging, using a pulse sequence interval of 1,000 msec and an echo delay time of 28 msec. However, in the evaluation of normal and pathological conditions, all four intensity images (SE 500/28, SE 500/56, SE 1,000/28, and SE 1,000/56) have to be analyzed. No definite advantage was found in using SE imaging with a pulse sequence interval of 1,500 msec. Inversion recovery imaging enhanced the differences between the cortex and medulla, but it had a low signal-to-noise level and, therefore, a suboptimal overall resolution. The advantages of NMR compared with CT and ultrasound are discussed, and it is concluded that NMR imaging will prove to be a useful modality in the evaluation of renal disease.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
J Rimola, J Martin, J Puig, A Darnell, and A Massuet
The kidney in paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria: MRI findings
Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2004; 77(923): 953 - 956.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.Home page
X. Fulladosa, F. Moreso, J. A. Narvaez, J. M. Grinyo, and D. Seron
Estimation of Total Glomerular Number in Stable Renal Transplants
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., October 1, 2003; 14(10): 2662 - 2668.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
J. Y. Jeong, S. H. Kim, H. J. Lee, and J. S. Sim
Atypical Low-Signal-Intensity Renal Parenchyma: Causes and Patterns
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2002; 22(4): 833 - 846.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. M. Goldman and C. M. Sandler
Genitourinary Imaging: The Past 40 Years
Radiology, May 1, 2000; 215(2): 313 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1983 by the Radiological Society of North America.