Estimation of glomerular volume: A comparison of four methods

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

137 Scopus citations

Abstract

Methods for estimating glomerular volume were compared in Zenker-fed, paraffin-embedded biopsies from 10 patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and 6 normal kidney donors. Two methods of measurement of individual glomerular volumes were used: the Cavalieri method (considered the "gold standard") and the maximal profile area (MPA) method. Also studied were the method of Weibel and Gomez and a method based on the disector principle; both estimate mean volume (VG). MPA and Cavalieri showed strong correlation (r = 0.93; P < 0.001), although the MPA method consistently overestimated the true volume; six glomeruli were necessary for a reliable estimate of VG. The disector method did not correlate with VG0 determined by Cavalieri. Weibel-Gomez did correlate with Cavalieri (r = 0.68; P < 0.05), but overestimated VG. At least 15 profiles were needed to provide a dependable estimate of VG by Weibel-Gomez. The Cavalieri, MPA, and Weibel-Gomez methods all can provide reliable estimates of VG. the latter two with appropriate correction factors. The individual glomerular volume methods, while more time consuming, provide information on variation and distribution of the glomerular population and are the methods of choice for studies of glomerular volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1085-1089
Number of pages5
JournalKidney international
Volume41
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1992

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was supported by grants from the NIH (DK 1083, DK 43605, MOl-RROO400), The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and the Viking Children's Fund. Dr. Lane's fellowship was provided by the American Diabetes Association Mentor-Based Program. We thank John Basgen, Thomas Groppoli, and Sandra Johnson for their technical assistance.

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Estimation of glomerular volume: A comparison of four methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this