OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of virtual unenhanced images reconstructed from a dual-energy CT scan to depict urinary stones in an iodine solution in a phantom study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty urinary stones of different sizes (1.4-4.2 mm in short-axis diameter) were placed in plastic containers. The containers were consecutively filled with different concentrations of iodine solution (21, 43, 64, 85, and 107 mg/dL; CT attenuation value range, 510-2,310 H at 120 kVp). Dual-energy CT was repeated with 80-140 and 100-140 kVp pairs, two collimation-slice thickness combinations, and the presence or absence of a 4-cm-thick oil gel around the phantom. The iodine-subtraction virtual unenhanced images were reconstructed using commercial software. The images were evaluated by three radiologists in consensus for the visibility of the stones and the presence of residual nonsubtracted iodine. Stone visibility rates were compared between the 80-140 and 100-140 kVp pairs and the five different iodine concentrations. RESULTS: Stone visibility rates with the 80-140 kVp pair were 99%, 93%, 96%, 94%, and 3% and those with the 100-140 kVp pair were 98%, 95%, 99%, 94%, and 99% for an iodine concentration of 21, 43, 64, 85, and 107 mg/dL, respectively. The poor visibility rate with 80-140 kVp and 107 mg/dL iodine concentration was due to the failure of iodine subtraction. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT iodine-subtraction virtual unenhanced technique is capable of depicting urinary stones in iodine solutions of a diverse range of concentrations in a phantom study.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of virtual unenhanced images reconstructed from a dual-energy CT scan to depict urinary stones in an iodine solution in a phantom study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty urinary stones of different sizes (1.4-4.2 mm in short-axis diameter) were placed in plastic containers. The containers were consecutively filled with different concentrations of iodine solution (21, 43, 64, 85, and 107 mg/dL; CT attenuation value range, 510-2,310 H at 120 kVp). Dual-energy CT was repeated with 80-140 and 100-140 kVp pairs, two collimation-slice thickness combinations, and the presence or absence of a 4-cm-thick oil gel around the phantom. The iodine-subtraction virtual unenhanced images were reconstructed using commercial software. The images were evaluated by three radiologists in consensus for the visibility of the stones and the presence of residual nonsubtracted iodine. Stone visibility rates were compared between the 80-140 and 100-140 kVp pairs and the five different iodine concentrations. RESULTS: Stone visibility rates with the 80-140 kVp pair were 99%, 93%, 96%, 94%, and 3% and those with the 100-140 kVp pair were 98%, 95%, 99%, 94%, and 99% for an iodine concentration of 21, 43, 64, 85, and 107 mg/dL, respectively. The poor visibility rate with 80-140 kVp and 107 mg/dL iodine concentration was due to the failure of iodine subtraction. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT iodine-subtraction virtual unenhanced technique is capable of depicting urinary stones in iodine solutions of a diverse range of concentrations in a phantom study.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Konstantin Nikolaou; Bernd J Wintersperger; Alexander W Leber; Franz von Ziegler; Carsten Rist; Sonja Buhmann; Andreas Knez; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-05-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Bernhard Krauss; Martin Sedlmair; Michael Grasruck; Herbert Bruder; Dominik Morhard; Christian Fink; Sabine Weckbach; Miriam Lenhard; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stephan Achenbach; Dieter Ropers; Axel Kuettner; Thomas Flohr; Bernd Ohnesorge; Herbert Bruder; Heike Theessen; Meri Karakaya; Werner G Daniel; Werner Bautz; Willi A Kalender; Katharina Anders Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Thomas G Flohr; Cynthia H McCollough; Herbert Bruder; Martin Petersilka; Klaus Gruber; Christoph Süss; Michael Grasruck; Karl Stierstorfer; Bernhard Krauss; Rainer Raupach; Andrew N Primak; Axel Küttner; Stefan Achenbach; Christoph Becker; Andreas Kopp; Bernd M Ohnesorge Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-12-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M M McNicholas; V D Raptopoulos; R K Schwartz; R G Sheiman; A Zormpala; P K Prassopoulos; R D Ernst; J D Pearlman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Syed A Akbar; Koenraad J Mortele; Kemal Tuncali; Jui G Bhagwat; Julian L Seifter Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hans Scheffel; Hatem Alkadhi; André Plass; Robert Vachenauer; Lotus Desbiolles; Oliver Gaemperli; Tiziano Schepis; Thomas Frauenfelder; Thomas Schertler; Lars Husmann; Jürg Grunenfelder; Michele Genoni; Philipp A Kaufmann; Borut Marincek; Sebastian Leschka Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Jodie A Christner; Shuai Leng; Jia Wang; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Xin Liu; Shuai Leng; James M Kofler; Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo; Mingliang Qu; Jodie Christner; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Imaging Med Date: 2009-10
Authors: C L Brown; R P Hartman; O P Dzyubak; N Takahashi; A Kawashima; C H McCollough; M R Bruesewitz; A M Primak; J G Fletcher Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315