Optimized management of urolithiasis by coloured stent-stone contrast using dual-energy computed tomography (DECT).
Dual-energy computed tomography
Stent-stone-contrast
Stone disease
Urolithiasis
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Apr 2019
30 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
21
12
2017
accepted:
12
04
2019
entrez:
2
5
2019
pubmed:
2
5
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We analysed in vitro the appearance of commonly used ureteral stents with dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and we used these characteristics to optimize the differentiation between stents and adjacent stone. We analysed in vitro a selection of 36 different stents from 7 manufacturers. They were placed in a self-build phantom model and measured using the SOMATOM® Force Dual Source CT-Scanner (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). Each sample was scanned at various tube potentials of 80 and 150 peak kilovoltage (kVp), 90 and 150 kVp and 100 and 150 kVp. The syngo Post-Processing Suite software program (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany) was used for differentiation based on a 3-material decomposition algorithm (UA, calcium, urine) according to our standard stone protocol. Stents composed of polyurethane appeared blue and silicon-based stents were red on the image. The determined appearances were constant for various peak kilovoltage (kVp) values. The coloured stent-stone-contrast displayed on DECT improves monitoring, especially of small calculi adjacent to indwelling ureteral stents. Both urinary calculi and ureteral stents can be accurately differentiated by a distinct appearance on DECT. For the management of urolithiasis patients can be monitored more easily and accurately using DECT if the stent shows a different colour than the adjacent stone.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We analysed in vitro the appearance of commonly used ureteral stents with dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and we used these characteristics to optimize the differentiation between stents and adjacent stone.
METHODS
METHODS
We analysed in vitro a selection of 36 different stents from 7 manufacturers. They were placed in a self-build phantom model and measured using the SOMATOM® Force Dual Source CT-Scanner (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany). Each sample was scanned at various tube potentials of 80 and 150 peak kilovoltage (kVp), 90 and 150 kVp and 100 and 150 kVp. The syngo Post-Processing Suite software program (Siemens, Forchheim, Germany) was used for differentiation based on a 3-material decomposition algorithm (UA, calcium, urine) according to our standard stone protocol.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Stents composed of polyurethane appeared blue and silicon-based stents were red on the image. The determined appearances were constant for various peak kilovoltage (kVp) values. The coloured stent-stone-contrast displayed on DECT improves monitoring, especially of small calculi adjacent to indwelling ureteral stents.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Both urinary calculi and ureteral stents can be accurately differentiated by a distinct appearance on DECT. For the management of urolithiasis patients can be monitored more easily and accurately using DECT if the stent shows a different colour than the adjacent stone.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31039768
doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0459-3
pii: 10.1186/s12894-019-0459-3
pmc: PMC6492318
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
29Références
Kidney Int. 2003 May;63(5):1817-23
pubmed: 12675858
Urol Clin North Am. 2007 Aug;34(3):287-93
pubmed: 17678980
Acad Radiol. 2007 Dec;14(12):1441-7
pubmed: 18035274
Invest Radiol. 2008 Feb;43(2):112-9
pubmed: 18197063
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug;191(2):396-401
pubmed: 18647908
Radiology. 2009 Mar;250(3):813-20
pubmed: 19244048
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2010 Aug;31(4):315-20
pubmed: 20691932
Radiology. 2010 Nov;257(2):394-401
pubmed: 20807846
J Urol. 2011 Apr;185(4):1304-11
pubmed: 21334658
Eur Radiol. 2012 Jan;22(1):251-8
pubmed: 21847542
Urology. 2012 Nov;80(5):986-9
pubmed: 22921702
Clin Radiol. 2013 Dec;68(12):e707-14
pubmed: 23988091
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):468-74
pubmed: 26318710
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):475-82
pubmed: 26344917
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Dec;205(6):1203-7
pubmed: 26587926
World J Urol. 2016 Sep;34(9):1297-302
pubmed: 26749082
Clin Radiol. 2016 Nov;71(11):1178-83
pubmed: 27554618
Clin Radiol. 2017 Jun;72(6):490-496
pubmed: 28258740