Dual-energy computed tomography: A reliable and established tool for In vivo differentiation of uric acid from nonuric acid renal Stones

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohd Ilyas ◽  
Ghanshyam Dev ◽  
Anchal Gupta ◽  
TameemAhmad Bhat ◽  
Shwait Sharma
2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John-Henry Corbett ◽  
Werner S. Harmse

Background: Composition of renal stones influences management of patients with renal stone disease. Currently stone composition can only be analysed ex vivo after stone extraction or passage, but recent introduction of dual-energy computed tomography (CT) to clinical practice has raised interest in the ability of this technology to determine composition of renal stones in vivo.Objectives: To determine renal stone composition in patients using single-source dual-energy rapid-peak kilovolt (kVp) switching CT.Method: Nineteen patients with renal stones for percutaneous nephrolithotomy were evaluated with single-source dual-energy computed tomography on a Discovery CT 750HD. The Gemstone Spectral Imaging (GSI) effective atomic number (Zeff) and attenuation at 70 keV monochromatic energy were used to predict the stone composition. Infrared spectroscopy and x-ray diffraction of stones after extraction served as the reference standard.Results: Two (10.5%) of the 19 stones had uric acid as major component. The other 17 (89.5%) were calcium-based stones. No statistically significant difference between the GSI Zeff and calculated effective atomic number (Z) for stone compounds was found. The GSI Zeff and attenuation could differentiate between uric acid and non-uric acid stones. No differentiation between different calcium stones could be made.Conclusion: Uric acid and non-uric acid renal stones can be differentiated with single-source dual-energy in vivo. The GSI Zeff reflects the dominant material in polycrystalline stones.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 2791-2801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor A. McGrath ◽  
Robert A. Frank ◽  
Nicola Schieda ◽  
Brian Blew ◽  
Jean-Paul Salameh ◽  
...  

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

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 133-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Stolzmann ◽  
Hans Scheffel ◽  
Katharina Rentsch ◽  
Thomas Schertler ◽  
Thomas Frauenfelder ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. 335-338
Author(s):  
A. S. Chaban ◽  
V. E. Sinitsyn

Objective: to study the capabilities of single-source dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in quantifying the concentration of iodine in solutions.Material and methods. Single-source DECT was performed using a phantom containing a set of 5 tubes with a different titer of the iodine-containing contrast agent Iopamidol. Further, the obtained images were used to construct iodine maps; and the concentration of iodine was measured within the volume of the titrated contrast agent.Results. Despite a high correlation between the measured iodine concentration in solution with the true concentration (Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.98; p < 0.01), there is a measurement error that was 4.8 to 23% at different dilutions.Conclusion. Signal-source rapid voltage switching DECT does not allow precise measurements of the true concentration of iodine in solution. To eliminate measurement errors in further in vivo studies using singlesource DECT, it may be that attention must be paid to the measurement of normalized iodine concentration. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 196.2-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Kravchenko ◽  
P. Karakostas ◽  
P. Brossart ◽  
C. Behning ◽  
C. Meyer ◽  
...  

Background:Differentiation of gout and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) is sometimes difficult as patients often present with a similar clinical picture. Arthrocentesis and subsequent polarization microscopy (PM) remains the gold standard but novel diagnostic approaches such as non-invasive dual energy computed tomography (DECT) have recently been validated for gout. Currently, limited data is available on DECT in patients with CPPD.Objectives:To analyse the diagnostic impact of DECT in gout and CPPD when compared to the gold standard of PM. We further compared the results of PM to ultrasound (US), conventional radiographs (CR), and suspected clinical diagnosis (SCD). Additionally, 15 laboratory parameters were analysed.Methods:Twenty-six patients diagnosed with gout (n = 18) or CPPD (n = 8) who received a DECT and underwent arthrocentesis were included. Two independent readers assessed colour coded, as well as 80 and 120 kV DECT images for signs of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals or CPP deposition. US and CR from the patient’s initial visit along with the SCD were also compared to PM. US examinations were performed by certified musculoskeletal ultrasound specialists. The association of up to 15 laboratory parameters such as uric acid, thyroid stimulating hormone, and C-reactive protein (CRP) with the PM results was analysed.Results:Sensitivity of DECT for gout was 67% (95% CI 0.41-0.87) with a specificity of 88% (95% CI 0.47-1.0). Concerning CPPD, the sensitivity and specificity of DECT was 63% (95% CI 0.25-0.91) and 83% (95% CI 0.59-0.96) respectively. US had the highest sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 0.65-0.99) with a specificity of 75% (95% CI 0.35-0.97) for gout, while the sensitivity and specificity for CPPD were 88% (95% CI 0.47-1.0) and 89% (95% CI 0.65-0.99) respectively. The SCD had the second highest sensitivity for gout at 78% (95% CI 0.52-0.94) with a comparable sensitivity of 63% (95% CI 0.25-0.92) for CPPD. Uric acid levels were elevated in 33% of gout patients and 25% of CPPD patients. While elevated CRP levels were observed in 59% of gout patients and in 88% of CPPD patients, none of the 15 analysed laboratory parameters were found to be significantly linked.Conclusion:DECT provides a non-invasive diagnostic tool for gout but might have a lower sensitivity than suggested by previous studies (67% vs 90%1). DECT sensitivity for CPPD was 63% (95% CI 0.25-0.91) in a sample group of eight patients. Both US and the SCD had higher sensitivities than DECT for gout and CPPD. Further studies with larger patient cohorts are needed in order to determine the diagnostic utility of DECT in CPPD.References:[1]Bongartz, Tim; Glazebrook, Katrina N.; Kavros, Steven J.; Murthy, Naveen S.; Merry, Stephen P.; Franz, Walter B. et al. (2015): Dual-energy CT for the diagnosis of gout: an accuracy and diagnostic yield study. InAnnals of the rheumatic diseases74 (6), pp. 1072–1077. DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-205095.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 717-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed M. Dawoud ◽  
Khaled Abd Al Wahab Abo Dewan ◽  
Shaimaa Ahmed Zaki ◽  
Magdy Abd Al-Raoof Sabae

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document