Skip to main content
Log in

Motion artifacts in kidney stone imaging using single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT scanners: a phantom study

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) has shown the capability of differentiating uric acid (UA) from non-UA stones with 90–100% accuracy. With the invention of dual-source (DS) scanners, both low- and high-energy images are acquired simultaneously. However, DECT can also be performed by sequential acquisition of both images on single-source (SS) scanners. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of motion artifacts on stone classification using both SS-DECT and DS-DECT.

Methods

114 kidney stones of different types and sizes were imaged on both DS-DECT and SS-DECT scanners with tube voltages of 80 and 140 kVp with and without induced motion. Postprocessing was conducted to create material-specific images from corresponding low- and high-energy images. The dual-energy ratio (DER) and stone material were determined and compared among different scans.

Results

For the motionless scans, all stones were correctly classified with SS-DECT, while two cystine stones were misclassified with DS-DECT. When motion was induced, 94% of the stones were misclassified with SS-DECT versus 11% with DS-DECT (P < 0.0001). Stone size was not a factor in stone misclassification under motion. Stone type was not a factor in stone misclassification under motion with SS-DECT, although with DS-DECT, cystine showed higher number of stone misclassification.

Conclusions

Motion artifacts could result in stone misclassification in DECT. This effect is more pronounced in SS-DECT versus DS-DECT, especially if stones of different types lie in close proximity to each other. Further, possible misinterpretation of the number of stones (i.e., missing one, or thinking that there are two) in DS-DECT could be a potentially significant problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Worcester EM, Coe FL (2008) Nephrolithiasis. Prim Care 35(2):369–391, vii

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS (2012) Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol 62(1):160–165

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Worcester EM, Coe FL (2010) Clinical practice. Calcium kidney stones. N Engl J Med 363(10):954–963

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saigal CS, Joyce G, Timilsina AR (2005) Direct and indirect costs of nephrolithiasis in an employed population: opportunity for disease management? Kidney Int 68(4):1808–1814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boulay I, Holtz P, Foley WD, White B, Begun FP (1999) Ureteral calculi: diagnostic efficacy of helical CT and implications for treatment of patients. Am J Roentgenol 172(6):1485–1490

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Vrtiska TJ, et al. (2007) Noninvasive differentiation of uric acid versus non-uric acid kidney stones using dual-energy CT. Acad Radiol 14(12):1441–1447

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matlaga BR, Kawamoto S, Fishman E (2008) Dual source computed tomography: a novel technique to determine stone composition. Urology 72(5):1164–1168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Boll DT, Patil NA, Paulson EK, et al. (2009) Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition–pilot study. Radiology 250(3):813–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leng S, Shiung M, Ai S, et al. (2015) Feasibility of discriminating uric acid from non-uric acid renal stones using consecutive spatially registered low- and high-energy scans obtained on a conventional CT scanner. Am J Roentgenol 204(1):92–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ibrahim El SH, Rana FN, Johnson KR, White RD (2012) Assessment of cardiac iron deposition in sickle cell disease using 3.0 Tesla cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Hemoglobin 36(4):343–361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jepperson MA, Cernigliaro JG, Ibrahim ES et al. (2014) In vivo comparison of radiation exposure of dual-energy CT versus low-dose ct versus standard CT for imaging urinary calculi. J Endourol Endourol Soc

  12. Grosjean R, Sauer B, Guerra RM, et al. (2008) Characterization of human renal stones with MDCT: advantage of dual energy and limitations due to respiratory motion. Am J Roentgenol. 190(3):720–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to El-Sayed H. Ibrahim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, ES.H., Cernigliaro, J.G., Pooley, R.A. et al. Motion artifacts in kidney stone imaging using single-source and dual-source dual-energy CT scanners: a phantom study. Abdom Imaging 40, 3161–3167 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0530-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0530-9

Keywords

Navigation