How can we measure the renal pelvic anteroposterior diameter in postnatal isolated hydronephrosis?

Abstract

The anteroposterior diameter (APD) of the renal pelvis is a commonly used ultrasound parameter in the evaluation and management of hydronephrosis. It has been established that an APD value associated with pyeloplasty is around 25mm. Some believe the APD should be measured at the innermost part of the renal pelvis while others suggest that it should be done at the renal contour. However, there is no consensus on the optimal APD measurement technique including whether it should be measured supine or prone. This study compared six different techniques of APD measurements, in both supine and prone positions, and further evaluated their association with pyeloplasty. Data was obtained by retrospectively reviewing patients' charts that had initial high-grade hydronephrosis (HGH) from 2008 to 2014. We recorded the patients' demographics, ultrasound data and management choice. In the mid-renal transverse plane, the APD was measured by 2 blinded investigators, at the intra-renal, renal contour and extra-renal regions of the renal pelvis in supine and prone positions (FigureA). We compared the six APD measurements based on the outcome of management (pyeloplasty vs. conservative management). The ROC curve obtained was then used to assess the ability of various APD measurements in predicting surgical intervention. The cutoff value chosen that predicts pyeloplasty was the lowest diameter with 100% specificity. We included 129 patients (134 renal units). Forty-four renal units (42 patients) underwent pyeloplasty whereas 90 renal units (87 patients) were managed conservatively. Patients' demographics were grouped by both SFU grade and clinical outcome. Regardless of grade, the APD measurements were different in all 6 techniques. All APD measurement techniques showed good inter-rater reliability. Based on the ROC curve, all APD measurements were associated with pyeloplasty with an AUC from 0.89 to 0.91. The supine extra-renal APD measurement of 24mm was the most sensitive cutoff value. The cutoff values ranged from 18 to 27mm when including patients from all grades of hydronephrosis. The median APD measurements were significantly less for SFU grade 3 than grade 4 hydronephrosis in all positions (P<0.001 for all measurements), yet the predictive cutoff value of 24mm for the supine extra-renal was similar for both grades. APD measurements differ based on the technique, but they are all equally associated with the clinical outcome of pyeloplasty. The inter-rater reliability of all techniques were excellent. Though the median APD measurements are smaller in SFU grade 3, it appears that the cutoff for a predictive renal pelvic APD does not differ between SFU grades 3 and 4 for the supine extra-renal technique. We conclude that the technique for measuring the APD needs to be specified in studies of hydronephrosis and in any grading systems.