Transplantation of a Blue Kidney: A Case Report.

A blue kidney, although very rare, can be encountered upon a live kidney donor. Literature has shown hemosiderin deposits, lipofuscin pigment, and melanosis as possible reasons. We report on a 37-year-old woman who wished to donate a kidney to her husband. The donor's preoperative biochemistry and imaging tests showed normal renal function. During the laparoscopic left kidney nephrectomy, the kidney was observed to be blue in color. Perioperatively, Doppler ultrasonography was used to rule out vascular reasons, and a wedge biopsy was performed. The other kidney was also explored, and it turned out to be blue as well. Histopathological analysis showed melanosis in the tubules without malignity or pathologic changes in the glomeruli, the interstitium, or the vessels. Even though some causes of blue kidney may result in impairment of the renal function, after the necessary tests show no signs of malignity and functional impairment, a blue-colored kidney may be suitable for transplantation.

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in cholestatic diseases.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the usefulness of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in cholestasis. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-seven patients with cholestasis underwent ultrasound and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, subsequently. The results of ultrasound and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were interpreted by two independent radiologists. RESULTS: According to ultrasonographic findings intra- and extrahepatic cholestasis were diagnosed in 62.7% and 37.3% of patients, respectively. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography revealed intra- and extrahepatic cholestasis in 52.2% and 47.8% of patients at the same group, respectively (p=0.016, kappa=0.789). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was indicated in 37.3% of patients (22.4% diagnostic, 14.9% therapeutic) according to ultrasonographic findings. However, 41.8% of patients had indication for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography following magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the same group. In 20% of patients who needed diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography according to ultrasonographic findings, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography wasn't indicated after magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Similarly, 8.9% of patients who didn't have indication for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography according to ultrasonographic findings underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (p=0.508, kappa=0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is valuable in diagnosis of extrahepatic cholestasis in patients suspected with intrahepatic cholestasis according to ultrasonographic findings. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography does not prevent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography requirement significantly in patients who need diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography following ultrasonography.