Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Physiology logoLink to Frontiers in Physiology
. 2024 Feb 7;15:1327407. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1327407

Magnetic resonance elastography resolving all gross anatomical segments of the kidney during controlled hydration

Marcos Wolf 1, Omar Darwish 2,3, Radhouene Neji 2, Michael Eder 4, Gere Sunder-Plassmann 4, Gertraud Heinz 5, Simon Daniel Robinson 6,7, Albrecht Ingo Schmid 1, Ewald V Moser 1, Ralph Sinkus 8, Martin Meyerspeer 1,*
PMCID: PMC10880033  PMID: 38384795

Abstract

Introduction: Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) is a non-invasive method to quantify biomechanical properties of human tissues. It has potential in diagnosis and monitoring of kidney disease, if established in clinical practice. The interplay of flow and volume changes in renal vessels, tubule, urinary collection system and interstitium is complex, but physiological ranges of in vivo viscoelastic properties during fasting and hydration have never been investigated in all gross anatomical segments simultaneously.

Method: Ten healthy volunteers underwent two imaging sessions, one following a 12-hour fasting period and the second after a drinking challenge of >10 mL per kg body weight (60–75 min before the second examination). High-resolution renal MRE was performed using a novel driver with rotating eccentric mass placed at the posterior-lateral wall to couple waves (50 Hz) to the kidney. The biomechanical parameters, shear wave speed (cs in m/s), storage modulus (Gd in kPa), loss modulus (Gl in kPa), phase angle (Υ=2πatanGlGd) and attenuation (α in 1/mm) were derived. Accurate separation of gross anatomical segments was applied in post-processing (whole kidney, cortex, medulla, sinus, vessel).

Results: High-quality shear waves coupled into all gross anatomical segments of the kidney (mean shear wave displacement: 163 ± 47 μm, mean contamination of second upper harmonics <23%, curl/divergence: 4.3 ± 0.8). Regardless of the hydration state, median Gd of the cortex and medulla (0.68 ± 0.11 kPa) was significantly higher than that of the sinus and vessels (0.48 ± 0.06 kPa), and consistently, significant differences were found in cs, Υ , and Gl (all p < 0.001). The viscoelastic parameters of cortex and medulla were not significantly different. After hydration sinus exhibited a small but significant reduction in median Gd by −0.02 ± 0.04 kPa (p = 0.01), and, consequently, the cortico-sinusoidal-difference in Gd increased by 0.04 ± 0.07 kPa (p = 0.05). Only upon hydration, the attenuation in vessels became lower (0.084 ± 0.013 1/mm) and differed significantly from the whole kidney (0.095 ± 0.007 1/mm, p = 0.01).

Conclusion: High-resolution renal MRE with an innovative driver and well-defined 3D segmentation can resolve all renal segments, especially when including the sinus in the analysis. Even after a prolonged hydration period the approach is sensitive to small hydration-related changes in the sinus and in the cortico-sinusoidal-difference.

Keywords: MRE, quantitative MRI, QA, kidney imaging, abdominal imaging, physiology, hydration

Introduction

Acute and chronic kidney diseases are a global burden to healthcare systems worldwide due to their disproportionate ratio between relative low incidence and high care costs (Bello et al., 2017). While early diagnosis and treatment are key to tackling this challenge in the short term (Stack et al., 2014; Bello et al., 2017), urgently needed improvements in therapeutic options are expected to follow from new pathophysiological insights (Fine and Norman, 2008). Medical imaging has already shown its potential to improve diagnosis over the last decades (Selby et al., 2018; Bane et al., 2023; Päivärinta et al., 2023).

Kidney function

Kidneys participate in many vital physiological processes. In brief, the formation of urine to maintain fluid balance, acid-base and electrolytes homeostasis, clearance of toxins, as well as blood pressure, and hormone synthesis and excretion (regulation). This is also reflected by extraordinary physiological properties. For example, both kidneys consume around 20% of the cardiac output, which leads to a cortical blood perfusion of around 400–500 mL/min/100 g, and medullary perfusion of around 100–150 mL/min/100 g. Enclosed in rigid renal capsules, the kidneys are literally under pressure. This hydrostatic pressure enables a relatively constant filtration of blood in the glomeruli, i.e., glomerular filtration rate (∼120 mL/min; GFR). Therefore, quantifying biomechanical properties—even with contributions from perfusion and fibrosis—has the potential to assess kidney function (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016; Kirpalani et al., 2017; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018a; Lang et al., 2019; Beck-Tölly et al., 2020; Brown et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022; Shatil et al., 2022).

Magnetic resonance elastography

Biomechanical properties have been used to differentiate between healthy and diseased tissues since the beginning of the art of healing, and can be found in historical scientific literature, e.g., in Auenbrugger’s ‘Inventum Novum’ describing percussion from 1754 (Bishop, 1961). Methods for non-invasive quantitative imaging of elastic tissue properties, i.e., elastography, were developed based on ultrasound (Ophir et al., 1991), and magnetic resonance imaging (Muthupillai et al., 1995; Manduca et al., 2021). Ultrasound-based elastography is a fast clinical tool with high spatial resolution (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018a) that is especially suitable for imaging renal transplants situated superficially in the iliac fossa (Correas et al., 2016). However, tissue anisotropy may influence ultrasound-based estimates of biomechanical properties (Gennisson et al., 2012), and its application is limited by the low penetration depth (Kennedy et al., 2020), transducer application pressure (Syversveen et al., 2012; Kennedy et al., 2020), and intra- and interobserver variability. In contrast, magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) mitigates some of these limitations, as was demonstrated in several studies comparing the two methods in patients with renal transplants (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018a; Kennedy et al., 2020; Elsingergy et al., 2023), with some variability regarding their diagnostic value. When performing MRE, typically, a stationary acoustic wave source is attached to the human body, and a synchronized phase-sensitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence is used to capture the shear wave propagating through the tissue of interest, exploiting the phase accrual caused by the displacement of tissue during the application of motion encoding gradients (MEG). The viscoelastic properties of the tissue can then be estimated from the displacement field by inverting the three-dimensional wave equation, which usually requires smoothing or regularization and often employs removal of the divergence term to decouple the shear wave from compressional contributions (Hirsch et al., 2017; Manduca et al., 2021).

In the last decades the organ studied most frequently by MRE was the liver (Sinkus et al., 2018; Allen et al., 2020; Ehman, 2022; Darwish et al., 2023), although, interestingly the kidneys were already mentioned in the seminal article (Muthupillai et al., 1995). Since then, MRE methods have been improved and have shed light on the potential to assess (patho-) physiological renal processes (Morrell et al., 2017). According to a Pubmed search, 20 October 2023, we could identify 26 studies on the human kidney (excluding animal, ex-vivo and tumor studies) (Bensamoun et al., 2011; Rouvière et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Streitberger et al., 2014; Low et al., 2015; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016; Dittmann et al., 2017; Kirpalani et al., 2017; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018a; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b; Kline et al., 2018; Gandhi et al., 2019; Lang et al., 2019; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Gandhi et al., 2020; Han et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2020; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Dillman et al., 2022; Güven et al., 2022; Shatil et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a; Chen et al., 2023b; Elsingergy et al., 2023). So far, only pneumatic (Bensamoun et al., 2011; Rouvière et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012; Low et al., 2015; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016; Dittmann et al., 2017; Kirpalani et al., 2017; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018a; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b; Kline et al., 2018; Gandhi et al., 2019; Lang et al., 2019; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Gandhi et al., 2020; Han et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2020; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021; Dillman et al., 2022; Güven et al., 2022; Shatil et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a; Chen et al., 2023b; Elsingergy et al., 2023), or piezoelectric drivers (Streitberger et al., 2014) were used. From those, 18 studies included healthy subjects, i.e., native kidneys (Bensamoun et al., 2011; Rouvière et al., 2011; Streitberger et al., 2014; Low et al., 2015; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016; Dittmann et al., 2017; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b; Kline et al., 2018; Gandhi et al., 2019; Lang et al., 2019; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Gandhi et al., 2020; Han et al., 2020; Dillman et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023a; Chen et al., 2023b; Elsingergy et al., 2023) including on median 12 healthy participants, and a mean voxel volume of 59 ± 36 mm³; breath-hold acquisitions were applied in only eight studies (Bensamoun et al., 2011; Rouvière et al., 2011; Low et al., 2015; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016; Gandhi et al., 2019; Gandhi et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023a; Chen et al., 2023b), and only three studies applied a fasting and hydration protocol (Dittmann et al., 2017; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b; Chen et al., 2023a) and no study applied high-resolution segmentation of all gross anatomical sections of the kidney (including the sinus).

The aim of this exploratory study is to present a high-resolution breath-hold MRE method, employing a novel transducer on native kidneys. Biomechanical properties were estimated specifically for all gross anatomical structures (whole kidney, cortex, medulla, sinus, vessels) after an extended fasting period, and after the application of a standardized hydration protocol. Currently, sinusoidal biomechanics were never estimated under controlled hydration, yet, hydration levels have been reported to modulate stiffness also in other organs (e.g., liver) as described in Ipek-Ugay et al. (2016) and Dittmann et al. (2017). Therefore, hydration levels should be taken into account when exploring potential biomarkers to assess (patho-) physiological processes, especially in the kidney (Selby et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2020).

Materials and methods

Healthy subjects and preparation steps

Ten young, healthy volunteers (5 male and 5 female; mean ± standard deviation, age: 26 ± 5 years, body mass index: 22 ± 2 kg/m2, weight: 66 ± 9 kg, systolic blood pressure: 119 ± 10 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure: 76 ± 8 mmHg, heart rate: 65 ± 15 beats per minute; detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria summarized in the Supplementary Materials) were asked to refrain from food and water for 12 h overnight. In the morning, all subjects were asked regarding their fasting period and medical history, with a special focus on the kidney, and their seated blood pressure was measured. Then they were asked to empty their bladder prior to multiparametric MR measurements (total 50 ± 6 min) and MRE measurements. Subjects were then asked to drink water or diluted fruit juice (>10 mL per kg body weight) and to empty their bladder again before all multiparametric MR and MRE measurements were repeated. The mean duration between the end of the first MR measurement and the beginning of the second MR measurement was 20 ± 4 min (where the time included escorting the subjects out of the scanner, the hydration time and toilet break, and repositioning in the scanner). The time between the hydration and the first “hydrated” MRE measurement (right side) took 61 ± 6 min, and the left side was measured 16 ± 6 min later. All subjects were interviewed after each MRE acquisition regarding discomfort or breathing issues.

All subjects gave written, informed consent to their participation prior to their attendance. The study was conducted in accordance with the current version of the Helsinki declaration and was approved by the ethics commission of the Medical University of Vienna (1595/2015).

MR setup and sequences

All MR measurements were performed on a 3 T whole-body MR system (MAGNETOM Prismafit, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany). Two flexible 18-element array coils (“Body 18,” Siemens Healthineers) were placed around the subject’s torso, i.e., in the back and the front. Initially, imaging localizers were used to identify the position of the kidney with respect to the coils. A gravitational transducer [GT, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom; liver transducer, see (Runge et al., 2018)] with a curved contact plate (15 × 11.5 cm) holding a gel pad towards the subjects was placed on the posterior-lateral abdominal wall next to the kidney. On top, a hook-and-loop fastener belt (width = 15 cm) was used to hold the GT in place. First the GT was placed on the right side (Figure 1A), and then—after imaging the right side—on the left side. The GT was driven by a stepper motor and was controlled and synchronized with the MRE sequence via scanner-derived trigger pulses. The rotational motion of the stepper motor located outside the scanner room was transferred via a flexible plastic shaft passing through the scanner room’s waveguide.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Placement of the MRE field of view (A). The FOV is sagittally rotated to be parallel to the transducer (MR-invisible) and the transducer padding (MR-visible) as well as orthogonal to the renal artery. The center of the FOV in head and foot direction was placed in the middle of the renal sinus. Both renal rims were covered with no folding artifacts. Optimal coverage of the renal poles was ensured. Clipped 3D model after segmentation showing the renal cortex (green), medulla (blue), sinus (yellow), and vessels (red) (B). Shear wave speed map in the kidney ROI (C), and associated renal cortex mask (D), loss modulus map (E) and phase angle map (F) of the kidney ROI clearly show differences between sinusoidal structures and the cortex and medulla.

A 2D phase contrast gradient-echo (GRE) MRE sequence was applied in four consecutive breath-holds (4 × 20 s, end-expiration), each acquisition with motion encoding gradients (MEG) in one of the three orthogonal directions and one without MEG (Darwish et al., 2023). Four wave phases were captured per direction. The oscillating MEG were applied fractionally to capture two opposing acoustic wave phases (i.e., two k-space lines) per wave period (Rump et al., 2007). MRE acquisition parameters were: 8 slices, voxel size: 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5 mm³ isotropic, matrix size: 128 × 108, GRAPPA factor 2, bandwidth: 660 Hz/pixel, flip angle: 20°, TR: 85 ms, TE: 7.38 ms, acoustic wave frequency: 50 Hz, MEG strength: 35 mT/m, MEG duration: 6.1 ms. Additional GRE images with higher in-plane resolution, aligned to the MRE field of view (FOV), were acquired for segmenting the kidney (8 slices, voxel size: 1.25 × 1.25 × 2.5 mm³, TR: 75 ms, TE: 4.92 ms).

An optimal field of view was achieved when the anterio-lateral and postero-medial renal rims were equally covered and no relevant folding artifacts occurred. The center of the FOV was positioned on the center of the renal sinus. The sagittal FOV was oriented to be orthogonal to the renal artery. Furthermore, the GT and FOV were placed parallel to each other, so that compressional waves would travel through-plane (Figure 1A).

The in-line reconstruction implemented at the scanner console was used to ensure that data quality was sufficient for post processing. This included shear wave propagation in all three planes (as seen after the application of the curl operator), assessment of non-linearity [defined as percent contamination of destructive second upper harmonics contamination (Runge et al., 2018)], total amplitude of the shear wave displacement in µm, and the ratio of curl over divergence of the displacement field (Manduca et al., 2021).

The MR system vendor’s adaptive-combine coil combination method was used, DICOM magnitude and phase images were exported from the scanner and converted to NIFTI (MRIcron, [Rorden and Brett, 2000)] for post processing in KIR [provided by RS, (Sinkus et al., 2005)]. In short, MRE postprocessing included phase unwrapping, application of a 3D Gaussian filter (σ = 0.75 voxel, kernel size 3 × 3 × 3 voxel), and voxel-wise calculation of viscoelastic tissue properties through direct inversion of the 3D displacement field, after applying the curl operator for removal of compressional components, similar to the method described in (Darwish et al., 2023). Shear wave speed (cs in m/s), storage modulus (Gd in kPa), loss modulus (Gl in kPa), attenuation (α in 1/mm), and phase angle [ Υ=2πatanGlGd ; ranging from purely elastic materials (0) to purely viscous materials (1)] were derived for the two innermost slices.

Renal segmentation was performed manually on the aligned high resolution anatomical images in 3D Slicer (Kikinis et al., 2014); with the following regions of interest (ROIs, see also Figures 1B–D): kidney, cortex, medulla, sinus (includes: renal sinus fat, urinary collection system, vessel with slow flow) and vessel (includes arterial and venous vessels due to their flow-associated hyperintense signals). This was done by MW (>13 years of experience on renal segmentation) and under supervision of GH (>25 years of experience in the field of urogenital radiology). The number of voxels (=volume) was extracted for quality assurance. These ROIs were then used as masks to extract the associated biomechanical properties from the calculated maps. Furthermore, the difference between the ROIs were assessed (cortex—medulla, cortex—sinus, medulla—sinus, cortex—(vessel and sinus), medulla—(vessel and sinus), cortex—vessel, medulla—vessel, sinus—vessel). Associated mean, median, standard deviation and root mean square were summarized for statistical calculations.

Paired samples t-tests were applied between the mean sample data of the quality assurance (see Figure 2, ratio curl over divergence, total shear wave displacement, contamination of second upper harmonics in % [as non-linearity]), before and after hydration as well as between the left and right side, to determine performance differences, using R (R Core Team, 2023). Due to the skewed sample data distribution, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were applied on the median biomechanical sample data to determine significant results. Samples with ties were excluded. The R-package ggplot2 was used for visualization of the results (Wickham, 2009). A p-value of less or equal to 0.05 was considered to be significant.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Quality assurance MRE data distribution. Regardless of the hydration state, both kidneys exhibit sufficient wave penetration and quality for biomechanical data calculation (coral = fasting, turquoise = hydrated). However, a significantly higher total shear wave displacement is evident in the left kidney (mean shear wave displacement left: 192 μm, right: 132 µm) (A). Non-linearity (B), and the ratio of curl over divergence (C) show no significant difference between the left and right kidney. Paired t-test, two-sided, non-equal variances; case 8 excluded. ***p ≤ 0.001.

Results

All subjects managed to comply with the protocol, including the fasting period and the hydration challenge. Initial localization of the kidney allowed for successful placement of the GT closest to the kidney at the posterior-lateral abdominal wall (between the regio vertebralis and lumbalis) of all healthy volunteers. The mean distance between the left and right kidney to the GT pad was 20 and 21 mm, respectively. In contrast, the mean distance from the left and right kidney to the back was 42 and 45 mm, respectively. The MRE images showed no significant misalignment over the consecutive exhaled breath-holds during the MRE acquisition and the high-resolution anatomical scan, so that segmented renal tissues were seamlessly overlaid on biomechanical images (see examples on Figures 1B–F). Also segmented volumes remained relatively stable throughout the study (Supplementary Table S1). Subjects reported no discomfort during the MRE measurements and the prescribed breath-holds were well tolerated. On one subject the trigger box (converting the optical signal from the scanner to the stepper motor via BNC) malfunctioned, so that during the dehydration period the right kidney could not be measured (case 8; external power supply did not work properly). Quality assurance of the MRE data shows a sufficient shear wave penetration and quality in all kidney segments and on both sides, as summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2. However, a significantly higher shear wave displacement was found on the left kidney with p = 0.0002 (Figure 2A). Supplementary Figure S1 shows an example data set with phase images and shear wave images (animated files are also shared in the Supplementary Material). At 2.5 × 2.5 × 2.5 mm³ resolution, 50 Hz excitation frequency and a median shear wave speed of 0.96 m/s, this resulted in 7.7 voxels per wavelength.

TABLE 1.

Quantification of quality assurance MRE data. This table includes all the acquired MRE data, including measurements before and after the drinking challenge (fasting and hydration) as well as both sides (left and right kidney). “Kidneys” subsumes all gross anatomical structures. “VesselSinus” summarizes the ROI of the renal sinus and renal vessels.

Quality assurance
ROI Number of voxels Nonlinearity/% Total displacement/µm Curl/divergence
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Kidneys 1262 168 23 4 163 47 4.3 0.8
Cortex 662 203 21 4 163 47 4.8 1.0
Medulla 280 70 23 5 165 49 4.1 1.0
Sinus 159 70 32 7 159 48 3.3 0.8
Vessel 60 29 32 7 160 46 3.3 0.9
VesselSinus 218 73 32 7 160 47 3.3 0.7
Open in a new tab

Figure 3 summarizes the biomechanical properties of all renal segments (data including both hydration states). Regardless of the hydration state, cortex and medulla showed significantly higher median cs (1.01 ± 0.1 m/s), Gd (0.68 ± 0.11 kPa), Gl (0.47 ± 0.1 kPa) and Υ (0.38 ± 0.04) than the sinusoidal structures (cs = 0.77 ± 0.06 m/s, Gd = 0.48 ± 0.06 kPa, Gl = 0.24 ± 0.05 kPa, Υ = 0.3 ± 0.05; p ≤ 0.001). The cortex exhibited the highest median cs (1.01 ± 0.08 m/s), Gd (0.68 ± 0.09 kPa), Gl (0.48 ± 0.09 kPa), and Υ (0.39 ± 0.03), while no significant viscoelastic difference was found between cortex and medulla. The attenuation did not differ significantly between the renal segments, but vessels exhibited the lowest attenuation (0.086 ± 0.016 1/mm, Figure 3E). Differences between all segments (before and after hydration as well as summarizing both hydration states), and their statistical analysis are summarized in Supplementary Table S6.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Summary of all biomechanical properties of all renal segments (coral = fasting, turquoise = hydrated). Regardless of the hydration state storage modulus (A), loss modulus (B), phase angle (C), and shear wave speed (D) of the sinusoidal structures differ significantly from the cortex, medulla and the whole kidney (p ≤ 0.001). Attenuation (E) was not significantly different between the gross anatomical segments. Stars over brackets indicate significant differences between pairs of gross anatomical segments. Detailed results and statistical analysis are given in Supplementary Table S6. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, two-sided, non-paired, and case 8 excluded. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

After hydration the sinus showed a small but significant reduction in cs (−0.03 ± 0.05 m/s, p = 0.02), and Gd (−0.02 ± 0.04 kPa, p = 0.01 Figures 4A, B), and this finding remained significant even when including vessel data, which per se exhibited no significant difference (Figures 4C, D). Supplementary Table S2 summarizes the biomechanical properties of the kidneys before and after hydration. The biomechanical properties of the left and right side, before as well as after hydration, are summarized in Supplementary Table S4.

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Due to the hydration, median shear wave speed (A) and storage modulus (B) decreased significantly by −0.03 ± 0.05 m/s, and −0.02 ± 0.04 kPa, respectively. Even when including vessels to the sinus MRE data showed a significant reduction of wave speed by −0.03 ± 0.05 m/s (C) and storage modulus by −0.03 ± 0.05 kPa (D). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, two-sided, paired, and case 8 excluded. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01.

As the cortical biomechanical properties remained relatively stable after hydration, the difference of cs, and Gd between the cortex and sinus increased significantly after hydration (Figures 5A, B). The calculation of biomechanical differences before and after hydration between intrarenal segments of both kidneys are summarized in Supplementary Table S3, and separated by side in Supplementary Table S5.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Median differences of shear wave speed (A) and storage modulus (B) between the renal cortex and sinus. After hydration, differences were significantly increased for shear wave speed (0.04 ± 0.08 m/s, (A) and storage modulus (0.04 ± 0.07 kPa, (B). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, two-sided, paired, and case 8 excluded. *p ≤ 0.05.

After hydration the attenuation of the vessels was significantly reduced in comparison to the whole kidney, cortex, and sinus (Figure 6A). Also, between fasting and hydration the medullary and vessel difference, as well as sinus and vessel difference showed a small but significant increase (Figures 6B, C).

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

After hydration, the median attenuation in the vessel segment (0.084 ± 0.013 1/mm) was significantly lower than that over the whole kidney (0.095 ± 0.007 1/mm, p = 0.01), cortex (0.094 ± 0.01 1/mm, p = 0.013) and sinus (0.091 ± 0.012 1/mm, p = 0.03) (A). The median difference of attenuation between medulla and vessels (B), and sinus and vessels (C) increased significantly upon hydration (0.01 ± 0.02 1/mm and 0.02 ± 0.02 1/mm). Stars over brackets indicate significant differences between pairs of gross anatomical segments. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, two-sided, non-paired, and case 8 excluded (A). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, two-sided, paired, and case 8 excluded (B,C). *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01.

Discussion

Our method showed a sufficient shear wave quality and penetration into native kidneys to derive various biomechanical properties (Table 1; Figure 2) in all gross anatomical segments (Figure 3). This was achieved by 1) employing a state-of-the-art 3 T scanner to acquire high-resolution renal MRE data, 2) using an innovative driver with a rotating eccentric mass, GT (Runge et al., 2018), 3) choosing a frequency that was sufficiently low to achieve the required penetration depth and high enough for the viscoelastic model to be applicable (Sinkus et al., 2005), and 4) complete segmentation of the kidney through overlaid high-resolution anatomical scans. We consider each of these contributions (using the same numbering) below.

Biomechanical properties of kidney

We present a subject preparation protocol and MRE method that provides high-resolution and high-quality renal MRE data, which enables us to quantify biomechanical properties in all renal segments. To our knowledge we present the first study in which all renal structures (incl. the sinus) were segmented and evaluated, with a well-controlled fasting and hydration challenge.

The renal sinus has been rarely evaluated in healthy humans using MRE. Arguably, due to the low shear wave quality achieved in some pneumatic MRE studies, indicated by confidence maps marking large areas as non-reliable for quantification, especially in the sinus (Han et al., 2020; Dillman et al., 2022; Shatil et al., 2022; Elsingergy et al., 2023). In contrast, we achieved excellent shear wave quality in all gross anatomical segments in the kidney (Figure 2; Table 1). We found that regardless of the hydration state, sinusoidal cs, Gd, Gi and Υ were significantly smaller compared to the cortex and medulla (Figure 3, p < 0.001). Only three studies have reported renal sinus stiffness measurements, but without applying a concrete fasting or hydration protocol. Contrary to our findings, Bensamoun et al. (2011) found stiffness in increasing order from cortex to medulla to sinus. However, they employed very large voxels (100 mm³), and no details were given on segmentation. Consistently with our findings, Streitberger et al. (2014) and Marticorena Garcia et al. (2018b) showed stiffness in increasing order from sinus to medulla to cortex. However, we found no biomechanical differences between the cortex and medulla during either fasting or hydration. Regardless of the hydration state, four studies showed that the medulla was stiffer than the cortex (Bensamoun et al., 2011; Rouvière et al., 2011; Streitberger et al., 2014; Gandhi et al., 2019), and four studies found that the medulla was less stiff than the cortex (Dittmann et al., 2017; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b; Gandhi et al., 2020; Dillman et al., 2022). These contradictory findings can be explained by the lack of well-defined segmentations, resolution, and the application of different methods. On the latter, for example, Rouvière et al. showed that a corticomedullary difference was only measurable at 45 Hz but not at 76 Hz (Rouvière et al., 2011). Indeed, the complex shear modulus G* biological tissue is strongly dispersive (Papazoglou et al., 2012), i.e., the frequency of the shear wave use in MRE has a strong influence on the quantified viscoelastic parameters.

Hydration-related changes

It is known that the need for water intake and the associated water turnover shows a large individual variation depending on age, weight, sex, energy expenditure, physical activity, diet, genetics and environment (Yamada et al., 2022). Therefore, we applied a 12-h overnight fasting period to ensure a well-defined “dehydration” state. To our knowledge, only two studies have applied a prolonged fasting period, “overnight” (Dittmann et al., 2017), and for 10–11-h (Kline et al., 2018), and only three studies employed a drinking challenge at all, either after fasting “overnight” (Dittmann et al., 2017), or for 2 h (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b; Chen et al., 2023a) (administering 1 L water). However, Dittmann et al. (2017) and Marticorena Garcia et al. (2018b) presented no detailed timetable regarding the time delay between the hydration challenge and the MRE measurement. Similar to our findings, Dittmann et al. found no hydration-related changes in the cortex or medulla or in the combined corticomedullary dataset (Dittmann et al., 2017), although no well-defined renal segmentation was performed. Marticorena Garcia et al. observed a weak increase in renal column shear wave speed and a weak decrease in medullary shear wave speed after the hydration challenge (and no effect on the cortical rim) (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b), however, measurements were performed during free breathing and “moving boundary conditions” between the renal column and medulla could have influenced their data. Chen et al. showed that 30 min after the hydration challenge subjects showed an increase in cortical and medullary stiffness and the cortico-medullary ratio changed significantly on both kidneys at 60 Hz (but at 90 Hz only on the right side). However, ROI were drawn on magnitude and wave images of the MRE data set with a relatively large voxel volume: 76 mm³ (Chen et al., 2023a). Also, their time frame was different to ours. Clearly, different biomechanical changes occur at different time points and in different segments. Without any prior food or water restriction, one study investigated the impact of drinking 1 L on healthy subjects, and observed only a significant increase in cortex stiffness after 18–22 min (Gandhi et al., 2020). In contrast to all previous studies, our hydration challenge was based on body weight (10 mL/kg of body weight) to further standardize the hydration challenge. This amount is considered feasible for healthy subjects as well as patients with kidney impairment, which allows for comparison in future studies.

We could show that the sinus and vessel data still hold important information regarding the hydration state, even after a time delay of 60–75 min. A possible explanation is that the kidneys sustained their physiological tasks more easily after the hydration, e.g., fluid balance. This could lead to a reduced vascular tonus, decreasing the intramural wall pressure. This is suggested by the small but significant reduction in cs and Gd of the sinus (Figures 4A, B). As the cortical biomechanical properties remained relatively stable, the difference in cs and Gd between the cortex and sinus increased significantly after hydration (Figures 5A, B). When including big renal vessels (with relatively fast flow; ROI: “VesselSinus”), the cs and Gd still decreased significantly upon the hydration challenge in the sinus (Figures 4C, D). This could be linked, on the one hand, to the relatively small volume of the vessels, and on the other hand, to the stable perfusion of kidneys in healthy subjects. Surely, the latter could be more pronounced in patients with hypertension or pre- and post-renal obstructions.

However, sinusoidal biomechanical modulations can be linked to a complex interplay between the small renal arteries and veins (with relatively low flow; vascular tonus, flow and volume changes), the urinary collection system (volume and pressure changes), as our renal sinus segmentation included these structures. Previously, it was reported that sinus stiffness increased with a full bladder (Streitberger et al., 2014; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2018b). This was also observed in an ultrasound-based elastography in pigs (Gennisson et al., 2012). Arguably, as our subjects were asked to empty their bladder before each measurement session (before measuring the fasting state, and hydration), and because they did not express a need to empty their bladder during the scanning time, the pressure from the bladder might have not affected the renal sinus.

Regardless of the low standard deviation within the renal segments of our acquired biomechanical data, it would be still favorable to be able to adjust findings to an intrasubject base level. With respect to elasticity, our results support that cortical structures seem to hold promising properties (Figure 5) (Caroli et al., 2018; Pruijm et al., 2018; Selby et al., 2018; Wolf et al., 2018).

During fasting, the attenuation coefficient of all renal segments were not distinguishable (Figure 3E). But after hydration the vessels showed a significant reduction in attenuation (Figure 6A), and the difference between the medulla and vessels (Figure 6B) and sinus and vessel (Figure 6C) exhibited a significant increase within subjects. This could be linked to boundary conditions because of the small volume of the vessels. Furthermore, the findings could be linked to changes in the diameter of the vessels.

Hydration can be considered to alter volumetric and pressure changes in the vessels, in the tubule system, in the urinary collection system as well as in the interstitial compartment; and their (patho) physiological interplay is complex (Fine and Norman, 2008; Niendorf et al., 2015; Selby et al., 2018). For example, even the denervation of renal transplants could induce variations in derived stiffness values due to changes in the vascular tonus (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016). A positive correlation of blood pressure to cortical stiffness was reported by Dillman et al. (2022). This becomes more complicated when fibrosis is present, as it reduces and alters the volume and pressure of the vessels and the tubule system. Therefore, reduced stiffness can be linked to reduced blood flow, a surrogate for fibrosis, which per se increases stiffness (Lee et al., 2012; Kline et al., 2018; Lang et al., 2019; Marticorena Garcia et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Güven et al., 2022). But other studies found an increase in stiffness with (suggested) higher levels of fibrosis (Marticorena Garcia et al., 2016; Kirpalani et al., 2017; Han et al., 2020; Elsingergy et al., 2023) or inflammation (Shatil et al., 2022). Therefore, measuring fasting and hydration related changes in patients could be a useful tool to unveil insights into pathophysiological processes.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, we present a small sample size to describe our method and findings. This is mostly due to the demanding fasting and hydration protocol, which made it difficult to recruit participants. Indeed, fasting for such a long period is challenging for patients, especially in the context of renal failure, diabetes mellitus (diabetic kidney disease), patients undergoing dialysis or transplanted patients. Furthermore, the hydration protocol might need to be further standardized for patients, for example, by taking body height and subject age into account. Also the end-expiration breath-hold duration of 20 s is often an insurmountable challenge for (older) patients. We observed that healthy subjects easily tolerate this challenge, which keeps the abdominal organ position more stable throughout multiple breath-holds. For patients with breathing issues, end-inspiration acquisitions might be more appropriate. However, faster MRE methods are currently being investigated (Rump et al., 2007; Guenthner et al., 2019; Darwish et al., 2023). Furthermore, we considered for our MRE models that all renal tissues possess isotropic properties; similar to all previous renal MRE investigations. However, diffusion-weighted images demonstrate that the medulla has relatively strong anisotropic properties (Qin et al., 2013; Caroli et al., 2018; Ljimani et al., 2020). Potential mitigation strategies were envisioned by Sinkus et al. (2000) and Qin et al. (2013). Further investigations have to verify whether this assumption will hold true. Lastly, we did not apply eGFR measurements on our young and healthy group of volunteers, because eGFR is known to be less sensitive in healthy subjects. However, we asked all subjects to give their medical history relevant to the study. In order to detect any relevant renal function differences, our young subjects would have needed to undergo disproportional and invasive methods, such as measured GFR (Selby et al., 2018). Though for patients, Zhang et al. (2021) found that analyzing MRE data together with eGFR could be used to help clinicians in monitoring renal transplants.

Conclusion

High-resolution renal MRE together with an innovative rotating eccentric mass transducer, and defined 3D segmentation resolved all gross anatomical renal segments. Even after a prolonged period after hydration, our method showed a small but significant reduction in shear wave speed and storage modulus of the sinus. Therefore, well-defined hydration protocols should be considered in future clinical renal MRE investigations to assess the complex (patho) physiological processes in renal disease.

Funding Statement

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Financial support via FWF project KLI 736-B30, P 35305, P 28867, and P 31452 is acknowledged. This work has been conducted during the COST Action CA16103, PARENCHIMA, renalmri.org.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Commission of the Medical University of Vienna. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

MW: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing–original draft. OD: Software, Writing–review and editing. RN: Software. ME: Writing–review and editing. GS-P: Conceptualization, Writing–review and editing. GH: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing–review and editing. SR: Software, Writing–review and editing. AS: Funding acquisition, Writing–review and editing. EM: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Writing–review and editing. RS: Conceptualization, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing–review and editing. MM: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Writing–original draft.

Conflict of interest

Authors OD and RN were employed by Siemens Healthcare Limited.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1327407/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary Figure S1

Parasagittal T1-weighted magnitude image of the left kidney (A) Associated phase image, acquired without MEG (B), acquired with MEG in readout direction (C), in phase direction (D), and in slice direction (E). Shear waves (curl) in readout direction (G), phase direction (H) and slice direction (I). Animation of the shear waves (G–I) are provided as GIF files in the supplementary materials (Data Sheet 1).

Table1.DOCX (96.4KB, DOCX)
Image1.JPEG (447.6KB, JPEG)
DataSheet1.zip (2.4MB, zip)

References

  1. Allen A. M., Shah V. H., Therneau T. M., Venkatesh S. K., Mounajjed T., Larson J. J., et al. (2020). The role of three-dimensional magnetic resonance elastography in the diagnosis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Hepatology 71, 510–521. 10.1002/hep.30483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bane O., Seeliger E., Cox E., Stabinska J., Bechler E., Lewis S., et al. (2023). Renal MRI: from nephron to NMR signal. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 58, 1660–1679. 10.1002/jmri.28828 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Beck-Tölly A., Eder M., Beitzke D., Eskandary F., Agibetov A., Lampichler K., et al. (2020). Magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of interstitial fibrosis in kidney allografts. Transpl. Direct 6, e577. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bello A. K., Levin A., Tonelli M., Okpechi I. G., Feehally J., Harris D., et al. (2017). Assessment of global kidney health care status. JAMA 317, 1864–1881. 10.1001/jama.2017.4046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bensamoun S. F., Robert L., Leclerc G. E., Debernard L., Charleux F. (2011). Stiffness imaging of the kidney and adjacent abdominal tissues measured simultaneously using magnetic resonance elastography. Clin. Imaging 35, 284–287. 10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bishop P. J. (1961). A bibliography of auenbrugger’s “inventum Novum” (1761). Tubercle 42, 78–90. 10.1016/s0041-3879(61)80023-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown R. S., Sun M. R. M., Stillman I. E., Russell T. L., Rosas S. E., Wei J. L. (2020). The utility of magnetic resonance imaging for noninvasive evaluation of diabetic nephropathy. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 35, 970–978. 10.1093/ndt/gfz066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caroli A., Schneider M., Friedli I., Ljimani A., De Seigneux S., Boor P., et al. (2018). Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging to assess diffuse renal pathology: a systematic review and statement paper. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 33, ii29–40. 10.1093/ndt/gfy163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen J., Chen J., Heilman J. A., Glaser K. J., Grimm R. C., Owusu N., et al. (2023b). Abdominal MR elastography with multiple driver arrays: performance and repeatability. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 48, 1945–1954. 10.1007/s00261-023-03866-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen J., Zhang Z., Liu J., Li C., Yin M., Nie L., et al. (2023a). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the kidneys: effects of regional, side, and hydration variations on functional quantifications. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 57, 1576–1586. 10.1002/jmri.28477 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen Z., Chen J., Chen H., Su Z. (2022). Evaluation of renal fibrosis in patients with chronic kidney disease by shear wave elastography: a comparative analysis with pathological findings. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 47, 738–745. 10.1007/s00261-021-03351-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Correas J.-M., Anglicheau D., Joly D., Gennisson J.-L., Tanter M., Hélénon O. (2016). Ultrasound-based imaging methods of the kidney-recent developments. Kidney Int. 90, 1199–1210. 10.1016/j.kint.2016.06.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Darwish O. I., Gharib A. M., Jeljeli S., Metwalli N. S., Feeley J., Rotman Y., et al. (2023). Single breath-hold 3-dimensional magnetic resonance elastography depicts liver fibrosis and inflammation in obese patients. Invest. Radiol. 58, 413–419. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000952 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dekkers I. A., de Boer A., Sharma K., Cox E. F., Lamb H. J., Buckley D. L., et al. (2020). Consensus-based technical recommendations for clinical translation of renal T1 and T2 mapping MRI. MAGMA 33, 163–176. 10.1007/s10334-019-00797-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dillman J. R., Benoit S. W., Gandhi D. B., Trout A. T., Tkach J. A., VandenHeuvel K., et al. (2022). Multiparametric quantitative renal MRI in children and young adults: comparison between healthy individuals and patients with chronic kidney disease. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 47, 1840–1852. 10.1007/s00261-022-03456-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dittmann F., Tzschätzsch H., Hirsch S., Barnhill E., Braun J., Sack I., et al. (2017). Tomoelastography of the abdomen: tissue mechanical properties of the liver, spleen, kidney, and pancreas from single MR elastography scans at different hydration states. Magn. Reson Med. 78, 976–983. 10.1002/mrm.26484 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ehman R. L. (2022). Magnetic resonance elastography: from invention to standard of care. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 47, 3028–3036. 10.1007/s00261-022-03597-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Elsingergy M. M., Viteri B., Otero H. J., Bhatti T., Morales T., Roberts T. P. L., et al. (2023). Imaging fibrosis in pediatric kidney transplantation: a pilot study. Pediatr. Transpl. 27, e14540. 10.1111/petr.14540 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fine L. G., Norman J. T. (2008). Chronic hypoxia as a mechanism of progression of chronic kidney diseases: from hypothesis to novel therapeutics. Kidney Int. 74, 867–872. 10.1038/ki.2008.350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gandhi D., Kalra P., Raterman B., Mo X., Dong H., Kolipaka A. (2019). Magnetic Resonance Elastography of kidneys: SE-EPI MRE reproducibility and its comparison to GRE MRE. NMR Biomed. 32, e4141. 10.1002/nbm.4141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gandhi D., Kalra P., Raterman B., Mo X., Dong H., Kolipaka A. (2020). Magnetic resonance elastography-derived stiffness of the kidneys and its correlation with water perfusion. NMR Biomed. 33, e4237. 10.1002/nbm.4237 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gennisson J.-L., Grenier N., Combe C., Tanter M. (2012). Supersonic shear wave elastography of in vivo pig kidney: influence of blood pressure, urinary pressure and tissue anisotropy. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 38, 1559–1567. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Glodny B., Unterholzner V., Taferner B., Hofmann K. J., Rehder P., Strasak A., et al. (2009). Normal kidney size and its influencing factors—a 64-slice MDCT study of 1.040 asymptomatic patients. BMC Urol. 9, 19. 10.1186/1471-2490-9-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guenthner C., Sethi S., Troelstra M., Dokumaci A. S., Sinkus R., Kozerke S. (2019). Ristretto MRE: a generalized multi-shot GRE-MRE sequence. NMR Biomed. 32, e4049. 10.1002/nbm.4049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Güven A. T., Idilman I. S., Cebrayilov C., Önal C., Kibar M. Ü., Sağlam A., et al. (2022). Evaluation of renal fibrosis in various causes of glomerulonephritis by MR elastography: a clinicopathologic comparative analysis. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 47, 288–296. 10.1007/s00261-021-03296-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Han J. H., Ahn J.-H., Kim J.-S. (2020). Magnetic resonance elastography for evaluation of renal parenchyma in chronic kidney disease: a pilot study. Radiol. Med. 125, 1209–1215. 10.1007/s11547-020-01210-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hirsch S., Braun J., Sack I. (2017). Magnetic resonance elastography: physical background and medical applications. United States: John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ipek-Ugay S., Tzschätzsch H., Hudert C., Marticorena Garcia S. R., Fischer T., Braun J., et al. (2016). Time harmonic elastography reveals sensitivity of liver stiffness to water ingestion. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 42, 1289–1294. 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.12.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kennedy P., Bane O., Hectors S. J., Gordic S., Berger M., Delaney V., et al. (2020). Magnetic resonance elastography vs. point shear wave ultrasound elastography for the assessment of renal allograft dysfunction. Eur. J. Radiol. 126, 108949. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108949 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kikinis R., Pieper S. D., Vosburgh K. G. (2014). “3D slicer: a platform for subject-specific image analysis, visualization, and clinical support,” in Intraoperative imaging and image-guided therapy. Editor Jolesz F. A. (New York, NY: Springer New York; ), 277–289. 10.1007/978-1-4614-7657-3_19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kirpalani A., Hashim E., Leung G., Kim J. K., Krizova A., Jothy S., et al. (2017). Magnetic resonance elastography to assess fibrosis in kidney allografts. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 12, 1671–1679. 10.2215/CJN.01830217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kline T. L., Edwards M. E., Garg I., Irazabal M. V., Korfiatis P., Harris P. C., et al. (2018). Quantitative MRI of kidneys in renal disease. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 43, 629–638. 10.1007/s00261-017-1236-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lang S. T., Guo J., Bruns A., Dürr M., Braun J., Hamm B., et al. (2019). Multiparametric quantitative MRI for the detection of IgA nephropathy using tomoelastography, DWI, and BOLD imaging. Invest. Radiol. 54, 669–674. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000585 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee C. U., Glockner J. F., Glaser K. J., Yin M., Chen J., Kawashima A., et al. (2012). MR elastography in renal transplant patients and correlation with renal allograft biopsy: a feasibility study. Acad. Radiol. 19, 834–841. 10.1016/j.acra.2012.03.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ljimani A., Caroli A., Laustsen C., Francis S., Mendichovszky I. A., Bane O., et al. (2020). Consensus-based technical recommendations for clinical translation of renal diffusion-weighted MRI. MAGMA 33, 177–195. 10.1007/s10334-019-00790-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Low G., Owen N. E., Joubert I., Patterson A. J., Graves M. J., Glaser K. J., et al. (2015). Reliability of magnetic resonance elastography using multislice two-dimensional spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) and three-dimensional inversion reconstruction for assessing renal stiffness. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 42, 844–850. 10.1002/jmri.24826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Manduca A., Bayly P. J., Ehman R. L., Kolipaka A., Royston T. J., Sack I., et al. (2021). MR elastography: principles, guidelines, and terminology. Magn. Reson Med. 85, 2377–2390. 10.1002/mrm.28627 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Marticorena Garcia S. R., Althoff C. E., Dürr M., Halleck F., Budde K., Grittner U., et al. (2021). Tomoelastography for longitudinal monitoring of viscoelasticity changes in the liver and in renal allografts after direct-acting antiviral treatment in 15 kidney transplant recipients with chronic HCV infection. J. Clin. Med. Res. 10, 510. 10.3390/jcm10030510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Marticorena Garcia S. R., Fischer T., Dürr M., Gültekin E., Braun J., Sack I., et al. (2016). Multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography for the assessment of renal allograft function. Invest. Radiol. 51, 591–595. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Marticorena Garcia S. R., Grossmann M., Bruns A., Dürr M., Tzschätzsch H., Hamm B., et al. (2019). Tomoelastography paired with T2* magnetic resonance imaging detects lupus nephritis with normal renal function. Invest. Radiol. 54, 89–97. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Marticorena Garcia S. R., Grossmann M., Lang S. T., Tzschätzsch H., Dittmann F., Hamm B., et al. (2018b). Tomoelastography of the native kidney: regional variation and physiological effects on in vivo renal stiffness. Magn. Reson Med. 79, 2126–2134. 10.1002/mrm.26892 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Marticorena Garcia S. R., Guo J., Dürr M., Denecke T., Hamm B., Sack I., et al. (2018a). Comparison of ultrasound shear wave elastography with magnetic resonance elastography and renal microvascular flow in the assessment of chronic renal allograft dysfunction. Acta Radiol. 59, 1139–1145. 10.1177/0284185117748488 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. McGarry M. D. J., Johnson C. L., Sutton B. P., Georgiadis J. G., Van Houten E. E. W., Pattison A. J., et al. (2015). Suitability of poroelastic and viscoelastic mechanical models for high and low frequency MR elastography. Med. Phys. 42, 947–957. 10.1118/1.4905048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Morrell G. R., Zhang J. L., Lee V. S. (2017). Magnetic resonance imaging of the fibrotic kidney. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 28, 2564–2570. 10.1681/ASN.2016101089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Muthupillai R., Lomas D. J., Rossman P. J., Greenleaf J. F., Manduca A., Ehman R. L. (1995). Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves. Science 269, 1854–1857. 10.1126/science.7569924 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Niendorf T., Pohlmann A., Arakelyan K., Flemming B., Cantow K., Hentschel J., et al. (2015). How bold is blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney? Opportunities, challenges and future directions. Acta Physiol. 213, 19–38. 10.1111/apha.12393 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ophir J., Céspedes I., Ponnekanti H., Yazdi Y., Li X. (1991). Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason. Imaging 13, 111–134. 10.1177/016173469101300201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Päivärinta J., Anastasiou I. A., Koivuviita N., Sharma K., Nuutila P., Ferrannini E., et al. (2023). Renal perfusion, oxygenation and metabolism: the role of imaging. J. Clin. Med. Res. 12, 5141. 10.3390/jcm12155141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Papazoglou S., Hirsch S., Braun J., Sack I. (2012). Multifrequency inversion in magnetic resonance elastography. Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 2329–2346. 10.1088/0031-9155/57/8/2329 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Piersol A. G., Paez T. L. (2009). Harris’ shock and vibration handbook. United States: McGraw Hill Professional. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pruijm M., Mendichovszky I. A., Liss P., Van der Niepen P., Textor S. C., Lerman L. O., et al. (2018). Renal blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging to measure renal tissue oxygenation: a statement paper and systematic review. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 33, ii22–ii28. 10.1093/ndt/gfy243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Qin E. C., Sinkus R., Geng G., Cheng S., Green M., Rae C. D., et al. (2013). Combining MR elastography and diffusion tensor imaging for the assessment of anisotropic mechanical properties: a phantom study. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 37, 217–226. 10.1002/jmri.23797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ . [Google Scholar]
  54. Rorden C., Brett M. (2000). Stereotaxic display of brain lesions. Behav. Neurol. 12, 191–200. 10.1155/2000/421719 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rouvière O., Souchon R., Pagnoux G., Ménager J.-M., Chapelon J.-Y. (2011). Magnetic resonance elastography of the kidneys: feasibility and reproducibility in young healthy adults. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 34, 880–886. 10.1002/jmri.22670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Rump J., Klatt D., Braun J., Warmuth C., Sack I. (2007). Fractional encoding of harmonic motions in MR elastography. Magn. Reson Med. 57, 388–395. 10.1002/mrm.21152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Runge J. H., Hoelzl S. H., Sudakova J., Dokumaci A. S., Nelissen J. L., Guenthner C., et al. (2018). A novel magnetic resonance elastography transducer concept based on a rotational eccentric mass: preliminary experiences with the gravitational transducer. Phys. Med. Biol. 64, 045007. 10.1088/1361-6560/aaf9f8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Selby N. M., Blankestijn P. J., Boor P., Combe C., Eckardt K.-U., Eikefjord E., et al. (2018). Magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers for chronic kidney disease: a position paper from the European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action PARENCHIMA. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 33, ii4–14. 10.1093/ndt/gfy152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Shatil A. S., Kirpalani A., Younus E., Tyrrell P. N., Krizova A., Yuen D. A. (2022). Magnetic resonance elastography-derived stiffness predicts renal function loss and is associated with microvascular inflammation in kidney transplant recipients. Transpl. Direct 8, e1334. 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Sinkus R., Lambert S., Abd-Elmoniem K. Z., Morse C., Heller T., Guenthner C., et al. (2018). Rheological determinants for simultaneous staging of hepatic fibrosis and inflammation in patients with chronic liver disease. NMR Biomed. 31, e3956. 10.1002/nbm.3956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sinkus R., Lorenzen J., Schrader D., Lorenzen M., Dargatz M., Holz D. (2000). High-resolution tensor MR elastography for breast tumour detection. Phys. Med. Biol. 45, 1649–1664. 10.1088/0031-9155/45/6/317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sinkus R., Tanter M., Xydeas T., Catheline S., Bercoff J., Fink M. (2005). Viscoelastic shear properties of in vivo breast lesions measured by MR elastography. Magn. Reson Imaging 23, 159–165. 10.1016/j.mri.2004.11.060 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Stack A. G., Casserly L. F., Cronin C. J., Chernenko T., Cullen W., Hannigan A., et al. (2014). Prevalence and variation of chronic kidney disease in the Irish health system: initial findings from the national kidney disease surveillance programme. BMC Nephrol. 15, 185. 10.1186/1471-2369-15-185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Streitberger K.-J., Guo J., Tzschätzsch H., Hirsch S., Fischer T., Braun J., et al. (2014). High-resolution mechanical imaging of the kidney. J. Biomech. 47, 639–644. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.11.051 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Syversveen T., Midtvedt K., Berstad A. E., Brabrand K., Strøm E. H., Abildgaard A. (2012). Tissue elasticity estimated by acoustic radiation force impulse quantification depends on the applied transducer force: an experimental study in kidney transplant patients. Eur. Radiol. 22, 2130–2137. 10.1007/s00330-012-2476-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. van Schelt A.-S., Gottwald L. M., Wassenaar N. P. M., Runge J. H., Sinkus R., Stoker J., et al. (2023). Single breath-hold MR elastography for fast biomechanical probing of pancreatic stiffness. J. Magn. Reson Imaging 59, 688–698. 10.1002/jmri.28773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Wickham H. (2009). ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science and Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wilson M. P., Katlariwala P., Low G. (2020). More studies are needed evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance elastography for allograft renal transplant rejection. Korean J. Radiol. 21, 1024–1025. 10.3348/kjr.2020.0242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Wolf M., de Boer A., Sharma K., Boor P., Leiner T., Sunder-Plassmann G., et al. (2018). Magnetic resonance imaging T1-and T2-mapping to assess renal structure and function: a systematic review and statement paper. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 33, ii41–50. 10.1093/ndt/gfy198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Wolf M., Kommer S., Fembek S., Dröszler U., Körner T., Berg A., et al. (2022). Reproducible phantom for quality assurance in abdominal MRI focussing kidney imaging. Front. Phys. 10, 993241. 10.3389/fphy.2022.993241 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Yamada Y., Zhang X., Henderson M. E. T., Sagayama H., Pontzer H., Watanabe D., et al. (2022). Variation in human water turnover associated with environmental and lifestyle factors. Science 378, 909–915. 10.1126/science.abm8668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang J., Yu Y., Liu X., Tang X., Xu F., Zhang M., et al. (2021). Evaluation of renal fibrosis by mapping histology and magnetic resonance imaging. Kidney Dis. (Basel) 7, 131–142. 10.1159/000513332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure S1

Parasagittal T1-weighted magnitude image of the left kidney (A) Associated phase image, acquired without MEG (B), acquired with MEG in readout direction (C), in phase direction (D), and in slice direction (E). Shear waves (curl) in readout direction (G), phase direction (H) and slice direction (I). Animation of the shear waves (G–I) are provided as GIF files in the supplementary materials (Data Sheet 1).

Table1.DOCX (96.4KB, DOCX)
Image1.JPEG (447.6KB, JPEG)
DataSheet1.zip (2.4MB, zip)

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Articles from Frontiers in Physiology are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES