Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Characterization of Urinary Calculi: Basic Principles, Applications and Concerns

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 496-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Mansouri ◽  
Shima Aran ◽  
Ajay Singh ◽  
Avinash R. Kambadakone ◽  
Dushyant V. Sahani ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Døssing ◽  
Felix Christoph Müller ◽  
Fabio Becce ◽  
Lisa Stamp ◽  
Henning Bliddal ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1397-1404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Große Hokamp ◽  
Simon Lennartz ◽  
Johannes Salem ◽  
Daniel Pinto dos Santos ◽  
Axel Heidenreich ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Jin Chae ◽  
Jae-Woo Song ◽  
Bernhard Krauss ◽  
Koun-Sik Song ◽  
Choong Wook Lee ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Ramin Ghasemi Shayan ◽  
Maryam Oladghaffari ◽  
Fakhrosadat Sajjadian ◽  
Mona Fazel Ghaziyani

CT and its comprehensive usage have become one of the most indispensable components in medical field especially in the diagnosis of several diseases. SECT and DECT have developed CT diagnostic potentials in several means. In this review article we have discussed the basic principles of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography and their important physical differences which can cause better diagnostic evaluation. Moreover, different organs diagnostic evaluations through single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography have been discussed. Conventional or single-energy CT (SECT) uses a single polychromatic X-ray beam (ranging from 70 to 140 kVp with a standard of 120 kVp) emitted from a single source and received by a single detector. The concept of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) is almost as old as the CT technology itself; DECT initially required substantially higher radiation doses (nearly two times higher than those employed in single-energy CT) and presented problems associated with spatial misregistration of the two different kV image datasets between the two separate acquisitions. The basic principles of single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography and their important physical differences can cause better diagnostic evaluation. Moreover, different organs diagnostic evaluations through single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography have been discussed. According to diverse data and statistics it is controversial to definitely indicate the accurate comparison of image quality and dose amount.


Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 3997-3998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Aibert Collinot ◽  
Tristan Pascart ◽  
Jean-François Budzik ◽  
Thomas Hügle ◽  
Michel Hussenot ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
El-Sayed H. Ibrahim ◽  
William E. Haley ◽  
Maria A. Jepperson ◽  
David D. Thiel ◽  
Michael J. Wehle ◽  
...  

The use of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for evaluating urinary calculi has been appreciated due to the modality’s capability of differentiating between uric acid (UA) and non-UA stones, which are color coded based on a postprocessing algorithm. No other imaging modality or laboratory test is able to identify the stone composition without first attaining the stone material. Knowledge of the stone composition is clinically significant since UA calculi may be treated medically whereas non-UA calculi may require surgical removal. Regardless of the stone type, ureteral stents are often placed to prevent or treat obstruction. Recent work has demonstrated that commonly used stents are also colored based on their dual energy characteristics and may thereby either improve or obscure the identification of adjacent calculi. Herein, we report the case of a 65-year-old man who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy of a large staghorn stone with subsequent significant residual stone fragments noted on a follow-up scan. By using three-dimensional DECT and taking advantage of color contrasting, the stone composition, burden, shape, and boundary were clearly depicted apart from the adjacent stent, resulting in successful medical treatment and obviating the need for further surgical intervention.


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Nute ◽  
Megan C. Jacobsen ◽  
Adam Chandler ◽  
Dianna D. Cody ◽  
Dawid Schellingerhout

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document