Type of Article: Original Research
Year: 2016 | Volume 4 | Issue 1 | Page No. 1837-1842
Date of Publication: 31-01-2016
ESTIMATION OF RENAL LENGTH IN ADULT NORTH INDIAN POPULATION: A CT STUDY
Archana Srivastava 1, Jyoti Chopra * 1, Hiralal 2, Garima Sehgal 1, PK Sharma 1, AK Srivastava 1.
*1 Department of Anatomy, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, U.P. India.
2 Department of Radio-diagnosis, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lucknow, U.P. India.
Address: Dr. Jyoti Chopra MD, Professor, Department of Anatomy, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow 226003 Uttar Pradesh, India.
Introduction: Kidney size reflects the health of the kidney. It is affected in a variety of acute and chronic renal diseases. Renal length is used in daily clinical practice to estimate kidney size. It acts as a surrogate for renal size and correlates well with renal function. To recognise the anatomical deviations in renal length it is important to have standard normal values for comparison. Currently, the data used for comparison is based on studies conducted in western population and therefore it is an incorrect representation of adult Indian population. The aim of present study is to determine a normal range of values for renal length in North Indian adult population and its correlation with age, height and body weight.
Materials and Methods: CT scan of 100 normal adult (16 males and 84 females; mean age of 43.5±10.42 years), who were voluntary prospective kidney donors, were analysed. The CT images were taken in axial, coronal and sagittal sections and renal length was measured and it was correlated with age, height and body weight.
Results: It was observed that the mean length of left kidney side was 99.2±9.71 mm and the right side was 95.3±8.47 mm. The left kidney significantly longer than the right kidney (p= 0.0028). In males, the left kidney length was 103.5±7.09 mm and right kidney length was 98.9±7.09 mm (p=0.08). In females the left kidney length was 98.4±9.96 mm and right kidney length was 94.6±8.56 mm (p=0.009). Renal length showed a positive correlation with the height. No correlation was seen with age, body weight and BMI.
Conclusion: In present study it was observed that in North Indian population the renal length was smaller as compared to Western population and it had a positive correlation with only height. This study makes an attempt to define the standard reference values for renal length in Indian population.
KEY WORDS: Renal length, Kidney Size, Chronic renal failure, CT scan.
- Ruggenenti P, Schieppati A, Remuzzi G. Progression, remission, regression of chronic renal disease. Lancet 2001;357(9268):1601-8.
- Bax L, van der Graaf Y, Rabelink AJ, Algra A, Beutler JJ, Mali WP. SMART study group. Influence of atherosclerosis on age related changes in renal size and function. Eur J Clin Invest. 2003;33(1):34-40.
- Weisenbach J, Horvath M, Jeges S, Adamovich K, Huszar T. Normal percentiles of kidney size in children as measured by ultrasonography. Orv Hetil. 2001;142(2): 71-4.
- Mazzotta L, Sarteschi LM, Carlini A, Antonelli A. Comparison of renal ultrasonographic and functional biometry in healthy patients and in patients with chronic renal failure. Arch Ital Urol Androl2002;74(4):206-9.
- Muthusamy P, Ananthakrishnan R, Santosh P. Need for a nomogram of renal sizes in the Indian population–findings from a single centre sonographic study Ind J Med Res 2014;139:686-93.
- Kang KY, Lee YJ, Park SC, Yang CW, KimYS, Moon IS et al. A comparative study of methods of estimating kidney length in kidney transplantation donors. Nephrol Dial transplant. 2007;22(8):2322-7.
- Ablett MJ, Coulthard A, Lee RE, Richardson DL, Bellas T, Owen JP, etal. How reliable are ultrasound measurements of renal length in adults? BrJRadiol. 1995;68(814): 1087-9.
- Buchholz NP, Abbas F, Biyabani SR, Afzal M, Javed Q, Rizvi I, Talati J. Ultrasonographic renal size in individuals without known renal disease. J Pak Med Assoc. 2000;50(1):12-6.
- Barton EN, West WM, Sargeant LA, Lindo JF and Iheonunekwu NC. A sonographic study of kidney dimensions in a sample of healthy Jamaicans. West Indian Med J. 2000;49(2):154-7.
- Arooj A, Lam J, Wui YJ and Supriyanto E. Comparison of renal size among different ethnicities. International Journal of Biology and Biomedical Engineering. 2011;4:221-28l
- Saeed Z, Mirza W, Sayani R, Sheikh A, Yazdani I and Hussain SA. Sonographic measurement of renal dimensions in adults and its correlates. Int J Coll Res Int Med Pub Health. 2012;9:1626-1638.
- Sahni D, Jit I, Sondhi L. Weight and measurements of kidneys in Northwest Indian adults. Am J Hum Biol. 2011;13(6):726-32.
- Emamian SA, Nielsen MB, Pedersen JF, Ytte L. Kidney dimensions at sonography: correlation with age, sex, and habitus in 665 adult Volunteers. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(1):83-6.
- Glodny B, Unterholzner V, Taferner B, Hofmann K, Rehder P, Strasak A et al. Normal kidney size and its influencing factors-a 64-slice MDCT study of 1040 asymptomatic patients. BMC Urology. 2009;9:19 doi: 10.1186/1471-2409-9-19.
- Karami M, Rahimi F, Tajadini M. The evaluation and comparison of kidney length obtained from axial cuts in spiral CT with its true length. Adv Biol Med Res. 2015:4:19.
- Tajima M. Ultrasonic kidney size measurement 2. In normal adolescents. Hinyokika Kiyo. 1987;33(11):1742-8.
- Wang F, Choek SP, Kuan BB. Renal size in healthy Malaysian adults by ultrasonography. Med J Malaysia. 1989;44(1):45-51.
- Raza M, Hammed A, Khan MI. Ultrasonographic assessment of renal size and its correlation with body mass index in adults without known renal disease. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2011;23(3):64-8.
- Okoye IJ, Agwu KK, Idigo FU. Normal sonographic renal length in adult southeast Nigerians. Afr J Med Sci. 2005;34:129-31.
- Edell SL, Kurtz AB, Rifkin ND. Normal renal ultrasound measurements. In: Atlas of ultrasound measurements. Mosby-Year Book, Chicago, IL: 1990;146-160.
Archana Srivastava, Jyoti Chopra, Hiralal, Garima Sehgal, PK Sharma, AK Srivastava. ESTIMATION OF RENAL LENGTH IN ADULT NORTH INDIAN POPULATION: A CT STUDY. Int J Anat Res 2016;4(1):1837-1842. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2015.347