Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 475–483 | Cite as

Dual energy CT in patients with acute abdomen; is it possible for virtual non-enhanced images to replace true non-enhanced images?

  • A. Lan Im
  • Young Hwan LeeEmail author
  • Dong Ho Bang
  • Kwon Ha Yoon
  • Sang Hyun Park
Original Article

Abstract

This study aims to determine whether virtual non-enhanced images derived from dual-energy computed tomography (CT) can replace true non-enhanced images in patients with acute abdomen. Patients with acute abdomen (n = 202) underwent multidetector CT including non-enhanced and contrast-enhanced images obtained at the portal phase using the dual-energy technique. CT attenuation values were measured in abdominal organs. Image quality, noise, artifacts, and acceptability for virtual non-enhanced images compared to true non-enhanced images were rated. Mean sizes of clinically significant stones and mean attenuation values of intraabdominal hemorrhages were compared by means of five-point scales. Effective radiation doses were calculated. Mean CT attenuation values of virtual non-enhanced and true non-enhanced images were similar. Virtual non-enhanced images showed good image quality, mild noise, mild artifacts, and good acceptability compared to true non-enhanced images. A total of 71 clinically significant stones (11 appendicoliths, 33 gallbladder stones, 11 bile duct stones, and 16 urinary stones) and 15 intraabdominal hemorrhages were included in the study. Small stones were detected better on true non-enhanced images than on virtual non-enhanced images. Hemorrhage was similarly detected on both virtual non-enhanced and true non-enhanced images. Mean radiation dose reductions by omitting true non-enhanced images were 33 % in the virtual triple protocol and 47 % in the virtual dual protocol. Image qualities of virtual non-enhanced images are comparable to those of true non-enhanced images. Small stones can be obscured on virtual non-enhanced images. Therefore, tailored application of dual-energy CT is needed for evaluation of patients with acute abdomen.

Keywords

Acute abdomen Dual-energy CT Virtual non-enhanced images Effective radiation dose 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Wonkwang University in 2012.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Marincek B (2002) Nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: acute abdominal pain: diagnostic strategies. Eur Radiol 12:2136–2150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ, Bromberg R, Edlow J, Raptopoulos V (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13:418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cahir JG, Freeman AH, Courtney HM (2004) Multislice CT of the abdomen. Br J Radiol 77(1):S64–S73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Frauenfelder T, Schertler T, Desbiolles L, Leschka S et al (2007) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the detection of urinary stone disease. Invest Radiol 42:823–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Graser A, Johnson TR, Hecht EM, Becker CR, Leidecker C, Staehler M et al (2009) Dual-energy CT in patients suspected of having renal masses: can virtual nonenhanced images replace true nonenhanced images? Radiology 252:433–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Cecco CN, Buffa V, Fedeli S, Luzietti M, Vallone A, Ruopoli R et al (2010) Dual-energy CT (DECT) of the liver: conventional versus virtual unenhanced images. Eur Radiol 20:2870–2875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee ST et al (2006) Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients. Emerg Radiol 12(4):150–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Udayasankar UK et al (2009) Acute abdominal pain: value of non-contrast enhanced ultra-low-dose multi-detector row CT as a substitute for abdominal radiographs. Emerg Radiol 16(1):61–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huda W (1997) Radiation dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:1487–1488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ware DE, Huda W, Mergo PJ, Litwiller AL (1999) Radiation effective doses to patients undergoing abdominal CT examinations. Radiology 210:645–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA et al (2004) Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 230:619–628PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borgen L, Kalra MK, Laerum F, Hachette IW, Fredriksson CH, Sandborg M et al (2012) Application of adaptive non-linear 2D and 3D postprocessing filters for reduced dose abdominal CT. Acta Radiol 53:335–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ho LM, Yoshizumi TT, Hurwitz LM, Nelson RC, Marin D, Toncheva G et al (2009) Dual-energy versus single-energy MDCT: measurement of radiation dose using adult abdominal imaging protocols. Acad Radiol 16:1400–1407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Cecco CN, Buffa V, Fedeli S, Vallone A, Ruopoli R, Luzietti M et al (2010) Preliminary experience with abdominal dual-energy CT (DECT): true versus virtual nonenhanced images of the liver. Radiol Med 115:1258–1266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang QW, Bamberg F, Reiser MF, Johnson TRC (2012) Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation a systematically optimized protocol. Investig Radiol 47:406–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sangwaiya MJ, Kalra MK, Sharma A, Halpern EF, Shepard JA, Digumarthy SR (2010) Dual-energy computed tomographic pulmonary angiography: a pilot study to assess the effect on image quality and diagnostic confidence. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:46–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mangold S, Thomas C, Fenchel M, Vuust M, Krauss B, Ketelsen D et al (2012) Virtual nonenhanced dual-energy CT urography with tin-filter technology: determinants of detection of urinary calculi in the renal collecting system. Radiology 264:119–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Am Soc Emergency Radiol 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Lan Im
    • 1
  • Young Hwan Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dong Ho Bang
    • 2
  • Kwon Ha Yoon
    • 1
  • Sang Hyun Park
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyWonkwang University College of MedicineJeonbukSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyAerospace Medical CenterCheongwon-gunSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyPlus Internal Medicine ClinicSuncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations