2005-11-15-15 Heron Werner, MD*, Pedro Daltro, MD*, Dorothy Bulas, MD# * Clínica de Diagnóstico por Imagem (CDPI) & Instituto Fernandes Figueira (IFF) – FIOCRUZ – Rio de Janeiro – Brazil
# Professor of Radiology and Pediatrics – Children"s National Medical Center – George Washington University Medical Center – 111 Michigan Ave, NW, Washington D.C. 20010

Hydronephrosis is characterized by the dilatation of calices and renal pelvis. It can be obstructive or not. Hydronephrosis has an incidence of 10-50:10,000 births and is responsible for 75 percent of fetal renal abnormalities of intrauterine detection. The most frequent cause of obstructive hydronephrosis is the stenosis of the ureteropelvic junction, being bilateral in between 10 to 15 percent of cases (Nyberg, 1990). The imaging study will vary in accordance with the degree of obstruction at the pyeloureteral junction. A proper diagnosis requires the dilatation of calices, and, most importantly, renal pelvis, without dilatation of the corresponding ureter.

Mild hydronephrosis of intrauterine detection tend greatly towards regression throughout the first months of life. The regression is still possible with hydronephrosis of moderate degree, but with a lower incidence. On the other hand, more severe hydronephrosis need an immediate postnatal evaluation, so as to determine the necessity or not for shunt. The recourse to lead shunt must be taken in consideration, in the severe cases, still during the gestation period. An association with other malformations is around 20 percent. An unfavorable diagnosis is expected when there is oligohydramnios.

When there is ureterohydronephrosis, the most frequent cause is the vesicoureteral reflux, also known as vesicoureteral regurgitation, which can be unilateral or bilateral. The severity of reflux is determined by the degree of urethral distention as well as by the pyelocalyceal systems, being possible to use the internationally accepted grading method.

When the cause of ureterohydronephrosis is obstructive, it is necessary to consider four possibilities of diagnosis:

Excepting ureterocele, all other causes will require a postnatal study so that one may produce a final diagnosis.

When ureterohydronephrosis affects only part of the kidney, the necessary diagnosis will be that of complete pyeloureteral duplication. It is necessary to observe the following:


ANGTUACO, T.; SHAH, H.; MATTISON, D.; QUIRK, J. – MR Imaging in high-risk obstetric patients: a valuable complement to US. RadioGraphics. v.12, p.91-109, 1992.

BENSON, R.C.; COLLETTI, P.M.; PLATT, L.D.; RALLS, P.W. – MR Imaging of fetal anomalies. AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol., v.156, p.1205-07, June, 1991.

BRUNELLE, F. & SONIGO, P. – L’apport de l’IRM pour le diagnostic prénatal des maladies génétiques. Medecine Foetale. v.36, p.30-31, 1998.

GARDEN, A.S.; GRIFFITHS, R.D.; WEINDLING, A.M. – Fast-scan magnetic resonance imaging in fetal visualization. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., v.164, p-1190-96, 1991.

GAREL, C.; BRISSE, H.; SEBAG, G.; ELMALEH, M.; OURY, J.F.; HASSAN, M. – Magnetic resonance imaging of the fetus. Pediatr. Radiol., v.28, p.201-11, 1998.

GIRARD, N.; RAYBAUD, C.; DERCOLE, C. – In vivo MRI of the brain. Neuroradiology. v.35, p.431-36, 1993.

KUBIK-HUCH, R.A; HUISMAN, T.A; WISSER, J.; GOTTSTEIN-AALAME, N.; DEBATIN, J.F.; SEIFERT, B.; LADD, M.E.; STALLMACH, T.; MARINCEK, B. – Ultrafast MR imaging of the fetus. AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol., v.174, n.6, p.1599-606, Jun. 2000.

LABRUNE, M. & REVEL-DUBOIS, M.P. – Autres techniques d’imagerie radiographie, TDM, IRM. In: PAPIERNIK, E.; CABROL, D.; PONS, J.C. – Obstétrique. Ed. Flammarion, Paris, p.227-37, 1995.

LAIR-MILAN, F.; GELOT, A.; BARON, J.M. – IRM encephalique anténatale. Edute rétrospective à propos de 34 examens. J. Radiol. v.78, p.499-505, 1997.

LEVINE, D.; BARNES, P.D.; EDELMAN, R.R. – Obstetric MR Imaging. Radiology. v.211, p.609-17, 1999.

LEVINE, D.; BARNES, P.D.; MADSEN, J.R.; LI, W. – Fetal central nervous system anomalies: MR Imaging augments sonographic diagnosis. Radiology. v.204, p.635-42, 1997.

McCARTHY, S.M.; STARK, D.D.; FILLY, R.A.; CALLEN, P.W.; HRICAK, H.; HIGGINS, C.B. – Magnetic resonance imaging of fetal anomalies in utero: early experience. AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol, v.145, p.677-82, 1985.

MIRLESSE, V.; WERNER, H.; JACQUEMARD, F.; PEROTEZ, C.; DAFFOS, F.; SONIGO, P.; BRUNELLE, F. – Magnetic resonance imaging in antenatal diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis. Lancet, v.340, p.1163, Nov.7, 1992.

NYBERG, D.A.; MAHONY, B.S.; PRETORIUS, D.H. – Diagnostic ultrasound of fetal anomalies. Text and Atlas. Year Book Medical Publishers, INC., 1990.

POUTAMO, J.; VANNINEN, R.; PARTANEN, K.; RYYNÄNEN, M.; KIRKINEN, P. – Magnetic resonance imaging supplements ultrasonographic imaging of the posterior fossa, pharynx and neck in malformed fetuses. Ultrasound Obst. Gynecol. v.13, n.5, p.327-34, May, 1999.

POWELL, M.; WORTHINGTON, B.; BUCKLEY, J.; SYMONDS, E. – Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in obstetric. II. Fetal anatomy. Br. J. Radiol. v.95, p.38-43, 1988.

ROMERO, R.; PILU, G.; JEANTY, P.; GHIDINI, A.; HOBBINS, J.C. – Prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies – Norwalk, Conn: Appleton & Lange, 1988.

SONIGO, P. & BRUNELLE, F. – Imaging of fetal cerebral anomalies. Pediatr. Radiol. v.28, p.212-22, 1998.

WENSTROM, K.D.; WILLIAMSON, R.A.; WEINER, C.P.; SIPES, S.L.; YUH, W.T.C. – Magnetic resonance imaging of fetuses with intracranial defects. Obstet. Gynecol. v.77, p.529-32, 1991.

WERNER, H.; DALTRO, P.; DOMINGUES, R,C.; BRANDÃO, l.; BRANDÃO, A.; PEREIRA, L.R.; GUERRA, F. – Ultrafast magnetic resonance (MRI) in fetal diagnosis. In: Perinatology. Bologna (Italy), Monduzzi Editore, p.733-38, 2001.

WERNER, H.; LOPES, L.M.; PEREIRA, J.P.; GALLUZO, R.N.; PESSÔA, L.G.; DOMINGUES, R.C.; DALTRO, P. – Ultrafast magnetic resonance (MRI) in comparison with ultrasound in fetal diagnosis. In: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Bologna (Italy), Monduzzi Editore, p.125-30, 1999.

WERNER, H.; MIRLESSE, V.; JACQUEMARD, F.; SONIGO, P.; DELEZOIDE, A.L.; GONZALES, M.; BRUNELLE, F.; FERMONT, L.; DAFFOS, F. – Prenatal diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis. Use of magnetic resonance imaging and its implications for prognosis. Prenatal Diagnosis, v.14, p. 1151-54, 1994.

WILLIAMSON, R.A.; WEINER, C.P.; YUH, W.T.C.; ABU-YOUSEF, M.M. – Magnetic resonance imaging of anomalous fetuses. Obstet. Gynecol., v.73, p.952-56, 1989.

« Retornar para lista de artigos