Is there still a place for angiography in the management of renal mass lesions?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In recent years, the development of noninvasive imaging modalities for exploration of the kidney has markedly reduced the use of angiography in the evaluation of renal masses. Presently, it is not required in routine practice to evaluate renal masses. Ultrasound is the most efficient procedure in detecting renal tumor. It is acknowledged that arteriography has a limited diagnostic and staging value compared with CT and MRI for the assessment of renal cell carcinomas (RCC). Most urologists recommend partial nephrectomy or tumor enucleation in an effort to preserve as much as possible functioning renal tissue. In such cases a preoperative map of the renal vasculature is not needed. Information on the main renal artery(ies) and segmental renal arteries can be provided with spiral CT or dynamic MR angiography. Arteriography remains useful in exceptional situations. Interventional arteriography is becoming an important part. It is indicated by means of selective embolization for the treatment of potentially bleeding tumor (i. e. angiomyolipoma) or in emergency in cases of acute hemorrhage. Less frequently, it may be proposed as a palliative procedure for inoperable patients with huge renal tumor. Two other indications of interventional arteriography are acknowledged. Some urologists request preoperative embolization of the tumor-harboring kidney to decrease/avoid extensive blood loss during surgery and/or to facilitate surgery with huge renal tumors when the renal vessels are difficult to reach. The complications of nephron-sparing surgery (partial nephrectomy or tumor enucleation) related to bleeding or arteriovenous fistulas may be cured by arterial embolization.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: