Advertisement

Calyx to Parenchymal Ratio (CPR): An unexplored tool and its utility in the follow-up of pyeloplasty

Published:January 10, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.01.004

      Summary

      Introduction

      Antero-posterior trans pelvic diameter (APD) and renal scintigraphy play a significant role in the diagnosis of pelvi–ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction and postoperative follow-up following pyeloplasty. However, the APD varies irrespective of improvement, deterioration, or preserved function in a hydronephrotic kidney and is not a reliable parameter due to various factors (hydration status, compliance, and reduction pyeloplasty). Calyx to Parenchymal Ratio (CPR) is the ratio of the depth of the calyx and parenchymal thickness measured on ultrasound (USG) in coronal image. We assessed the utility of CPR in the follow up of pyeloplasty and compared it with the commonly used APD of the pelvis and renal scintigraphy.

      Material and methods

      A prospective cohort study was done from July 2016 to October 2017. During this period 73 pyeloplasties were done, and 62 cases meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled. All the children underwent ultrasound and Technetium-99 m Ethylene dicysteine isotope renogram (EC) scan before and after pyeloplasty. APD and CPR values were measured on USG and compared with isotope renogram outcomes in these children in the preoperative versus postoperative period. Two defined objective variables ΔAPD, percent ΔAPD and ΔCPR, percent ΔCPR were compared with categorical variables that would predict the surgical outcome as - failed, successful or equivocal. Multinomial logistic regression analysis and receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to identify predictive accuracy.

      Results

      The mean (range) APD value recorded in the preoperative period was 3.67 cm (1.40–8.00 cm), which decreased to 1.67 cm (0.40–6.50) postoperatively, which was 54.2% lower (P=<0.001). The mean (range) CPR value decreased from 5.96 (1.20–20.00) in the preoperative period to 2.57 (0.43–10.90) postoperatively, which was 56.8% lower (P=<0.001). On multinomial logistic regression analysis, ΔCPR was found to be a significant predictor of outcome with an overall accuracy of 95.1%, change in CPR was a better predictor of success after pyeloplasty as compared to change in APD, which had an overall accuracy of 85.2% (p = 0.01). Further, on ROC curve analysis, we observed that ΔCPR and %ΔCPR can strongly predict successful pyeloplasty with a sensitivity of each with 96% and 98% respectively and AUC of 0.897 and 0.799 respectively.

      Discussion

      USG (APD) and renogram are the most widely used investigation in follow-up of pyeloplasty; however, APD has its own limitations like operator variability and slower improvement. CPR has the advantages that neither calyceal depth nor parenchymal thickness is directly altered during the surgery, and early resolution of calyceal dilatation and rapid parenchymal growth following pyeloplasty and thus a surgeon independent parameter. Our results have shown that ΔCPR can identify successful pyeloplasty with strong prediction than ΔAPD and thus renal scans can be avoided if there is visible improvement in CPR on follow-up.

      Conclusions

      Summary TableROC curve analysis of ΔCPR and ΔAPD and percent ΔCPR and percent ΔAPD in predicting surgical outcome following pyeloplasty
      Parameters Cut-off value Sensitivity Specificity AUC 95% Confidence Interval (CI) p- value
      ΔCPR 0.4 96.08% 75% 0.897 0.785 to 0.963 0.0001
      ΔAPD 1.3 68.63% 75% 0.615 0.474 to 0.743 0.503
      %Δ CPR 12.5 98.04% 75% 0.799 0.669 to 0.895 0.137
      % ΔAPD 41.25 80.39% 75% 0.848 0.726 to 0.931 0.0001

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mallik M.
        • Watson A.R.
        Antenatally detected urinary tract abnormalities: more detection but less action.
        Pediatr Nephrol. 2008; 23: 897-904https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-008-0746-9
        • Dudley J.A.
        • Haworth J.M.
        • McGraw M.E.
        • Frank J.D.
        • Tizard E.J.
        Clinical relevance and implications of antenatal hydronephrosis.
        Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997; 76: F31-F34https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.76.1.F31
        • Kim E.K.
        • Song T.B.
        A study on fetal urinary tract anomaly: antenatal ultrasonographic diagnosis and postnatal follow-up.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1996; 22: 569-573https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.1996.tb01072.x
        • Ek S.
        • Lidefeldt K.J.
        • Varricio L.
        Fetal hydronephrosis; prevalence, natural history and postnatal consequences in an unselected population.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86: 1463-1466https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340701714802
        • Livera L.N.
        • Brookfield D.S.K.
        • Egginton J.A.
        • Hawnaur J.M.
        Antenatal ultrasonography to detect fetal renal abnormalities: a prospective screening programme.
        Br Med J. 1989; 298: 1421-1423https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.298.6685.1421
        • Sairam S.
        • Al-Habib A.
        • Sasson S.
        • Thilaganathan B.
        Natural history of fetal hydronephrosis diagnosed on mid-trimester ultrasound.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 17: 191-196https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00333.x
        • Joyner BD M.M.
        Ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        in: Grosfield J.L. Pediatr. Surg.6th ed. Mosby Elsevier, 2006: 1723-1740
        • Ozker K.
        • Onsel C.
        • Kabasakal L.
        • Sayman H.B.
        • Uslu I.
        • Bozluolcay S.
        • et al.
        Technetium-99m-N,N-ethylenedicysteine - a comparative study of renal scintigraphy with technetium-99m-MAG3 and iodine-131-OIH in patients with obstructive renal disease.
        J Nucl Med. 1994; 35: 840-845
        • Chertin B.
        • Pollack A.
        • Koulikov D.
        • Rabinowitz R.
        • Hain D.
        • Hadas-Halpren I.
        • et al.
        Conservative treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children with antenatal diagnosis of hydronephrosis: lessons learned after 16 years of follow-up.
        Eur Urol. 2006; 49: 734-739https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.01.046
        • Imaji R.
        • Dewan P.A.
        Calyx to parenchyma ratio in pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction.
        BJU Int. 2002; 89: 73-77https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01550.x
        • Hsi R.S.
        • Holt S.K.
        • Gore J.L.
        • Lendvay T.S.
        • Harper J.D.
        National trends in followup imaging after pyeloplasty in children in the United States.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 777-782https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.123
        • Pohl H.G.
        • Rushton H.G.
        • Park J.-S.
        • Belman A.B.
        • Majd M.
        Early diuresis renogram findings predict success following pyeloplasty.
        J Urol. 2001; : 2311-2315https://doi.org/10.1097/00005392-200106001-00024
        • Van Den Hoek J.
        • De Jong A.
        • Scheepe J.
        • Van Der Toorn F.
        • Wolffenbuttel K.
        Prolonged follow-up after paediatric pyeloplasty: are repeat scans necessary?.
        BJU Int. 2007; 100: 1150-1152https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07033.x
        • Kumar M.
        • Singh S.K.
        • Arora S.
        • Mittal V.
        • Patidar N.
        • Sureka S.K.
        • et al.
        Follow-up imaging after pediatric pyeloplasty.
        Indian J Urol. 2016; 32: 221-226https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.185090
        • Cost N.G.
        • Prieto J.C.
        • Wilcox D.T.
        Screening ultrasound in follow-up after pediatric pyeloplasty.
        Urology. 2010; 76: 175-179https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.092
        • Faure A.
        • London K.
        • Smith G.H.H.
        Early mercaptoacetyltriglycine(MAG-3) diuretic renography results after pyeloplasty.
        BJU Int. 2016; 118: 790-796https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13512
        • Valla J.S.
        • Breaud J.
        • Griffin S.J.
        • Sautot-Vial N.
        • Beretta F.
        • Guana R.
        • et al.
        Retroperitoneoscopic vs open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2009; 5: 368-373https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.02.202
        • Braga L.H.P.
        • Lorenzo A.J.
        • Bägli D.J.
        • Mahdi M.
        • Salle J.L.P.
        • Khoury A.E.
        • et al.
        Comparison of flank, dorsal lumbotomy and laparoscopic approaches for dismembered pyeloplasty in children older than 3 Years with ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
        J Urol. 2010; 183: 306-311https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.09.008
        • Babu R.
        • Sai V.
        Pelvis/cortex ratio: an early marker of success following pyeloplasty in children.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2010; 6: 473-476https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.12.004
        • Kis É.
        • Verebély T.
        • Kövi R.
        • Máttyus I.
        The role of ultrasound in the follow-up of postoperative changes after pyeloplasty.
        Pediatr Radiol. 1998; 28: 247-249https://doi.org/10.1007/s002470050342
        • Rickard M.
        • Braga L.H.
        • Oliveria J.P.
        • Romao R.
        • Demaria J.
        • Lorenzo A.J.
        Percent improvement in renal pelvis antero-posterior diameter (PI-APD): prospective validation and further exploration of cut-off values that predict success after pediatric pyeloplasty supporting safe monitoring with ultrasound alone.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2016; 12: 228.e1-228.e6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.003