Advertisement

Virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT for evaluation of hepatic and splenic lacerations

  • Ellen X. SunEmail author
  • Jeremy R. Wortman
  • Jennifer W. Uyeda
  • Roger Lacson
  • Aaron D. Sodickson
Original Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the utility of virtual monoenergetic imaging in assessing hepatic and splenic lacerations and to determine the optimal energy level to maximize injury contrast-to-noise ratio.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 49 contrast-enhanced abdominal CT studies performed on a dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT) scanner with reported liver and/or splenic lacerations. All studies included portal venous phase imaging acquired simultaneously at low (80 or 100 kVp) and high (140 kVp with tin filtration) energy levels. Conventional 120 kVp-equivalent images were generated for routine review by blending the low and high energy acquisitions. Virtual monoenergetic reconstructions were retrospectively generated in 10 keV increments from 40 to 90 keV. Liver or splenic laceration attenuation, background parenchymal attenuation, and noise were measured on each set of monoenergetic and conventional images. Injury-to-parenchyma contrast and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were calculated. Differences between CNR of monoenergetic series and conventional images were assessed with a paired t test.

Results

Liver laceration was identified in 28 patients, and splenic laceration in 22 patients. Background noise was lower at higher monoenergetic levels, with the lowest noise seen at 90 keV, less than that of conventional images (stddev 8.0 for 90 keV and 8.5 for conventional based on noise of uninjured liver/spleen parenchyma, p < 0.001). For both liver and splenic lacerations, injury-to-parenchyma contrast was greater at lower monoenergetic levels, with maximum at 40 keV. Contrast at 40–70 keV was significantly greater than that of conventional images (p < 0.001). Injury-to parenchyma CNR was also greater at 40–70 keV than that of conventional images and with statistical significance. CNR was highest at 40 keV for both liver (6.5 for 40 keV and 5.4 for conventional, p < 0.001) and splenic lacerations (7.5 vs. 5.8, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

DECT virtual monoenergetic imaging at low keV improves injury-to-parenchyma CNR of hepatic and splenic lacerations compared with traditional polyenergetic reconstructions. Specially, the optimal energy level for assessing both was 40 keV.

Keywords

Liver laceration Splenic laceration Dual-energy CT Virtual monoenergetic imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Aaron Sodickson is PI of an institutional research grant from Siemens on dual-energy CT, and received speaker honoraria from Siemens and GE on CT topics.

Jeremy Wortman was a coinvestigator on the Siemens dual-energy CT grant at the time of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Soto JA, Anderson SW (2012) Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma. Radiology 265(3):678–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boscak A, Shanmuganathan K (2012) Splenic trauma: what is new? Radiol Clin N Am 50(1):105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yoon W, Jeong YY, Kim JCJK, Seo JJ, Lim HS, Shin SS et al (2005) CT in blunt liver trauma. Radiographics 25(1):87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cirocchi R, Boselli C, Corsi A, Farinella E, Listorti C, Trastulli S, Renzi C, Desiderio J, Santoro A, Cagini L, Parisi A, Redler A, Noya G, Fingerhut A (2013) Is non-operative management safe and effective for all splenic blunt trauma? A systematic review. Crit Care 17(5):R185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    El-Matbouly M, Jabbour G, El-Menyar A, Peralta R, Abdelrahman H, Zarour A et al (2016) Blunt splenic trauma: assessment, management and outcomes. Surgeon 14(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fang J-F, Wong Y-C, Lin B-C, Hsu Y-P, Chen M-F (2006) The CT risk factors for the need of operative treatment in initially hemodynamically stable patients after blunt hepatic trauma. J Trauma 61(3):547–553 discussion 553-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petrowsky H, Raeder S, Zuercher L, Platz A, Simmen HP, Puhan MA, Keel MJ, Clavien PA (2012) A quarter century experience in liver trauma: a plea for early computed tomography and conservative management for all hemodynamically stable patients. World J Surg 36(2):247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson TRC (2012) Dual-energy CT: general principles. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(5 Suppl):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG (2015) Dual- and multi-energy CT: principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. Radiology 276(3):637–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wortman JR, Uyeda JW, Fulwadhva UP, Sodickson AD (2018) Dual-energy CT for abdominal and pelvic trauma. Radiographics 38(2):586–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patino M, Prochowski A, Agrawal MD, Simeone FJ, Gupta R, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2016) Material separation using dual-energy CT: current and emerging applications. RadioGraphics 36(4):1087–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marin D, Boll DT, Mileto A, Nelson RC (2014) State of the art: dual-energy CT of the abdomen. Radiology 271(2):327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y, Abe T, Kuribayashi S (2012) Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging for the evaluation of hypovascular hepatic metastases: the optimal monochromatic level with fast kilovoltage switching dual-energy computed tomography. Investig Radiol 47(5):292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shuman WP, Green DE, Busey JM, Mitsumori LM, Choi E, Koprowicz KM, Kanal KM (2014) Dual-energy liver CT: effect of monochromatic imaging on lesion detection, conspicuity, and contrast-to-noise ratio of hypervascular lesions on late arterial phase. Am J Roentgenol 203(3):601–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mileto A, Nelson RC, Samei E, Choudhury KR, Jaffe TA, Wilson JM, Marin D (2014) Dual-energy MDCT in hypervascular liver tumors: effect of body size on selection of the optimal monochromatic energy level. Am J Roentgenol 203(6):1257–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Husarik DB, Gordic S, Desbiolles L, Krauss B, Leschka S, Wildermuth S, Alkadhi H (2015) Advanced virtual monoenergetic computed tomography of hyperattenuating and hypoattenuating liver lesions: ex-vivo and patient experience in various body sizes. Investig Radiol 50(10):695–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou C, Zhao YE, Luo S, Shi H, li L, Zheng L, Zhang LJ, Lu G (2011) Monoenergetic imaging of dual-energy CT reduces artifacts from implanted metal orthopedic devices in patients with factures. Acad Radiol 18:1252–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TRC (2011 Jul) Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 21(7):1424–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH (2015) Maximizing iodine contrast-to-noise ratios in abdominal CT imaging through use of energy domain noise reduction and virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT. Radiology 276(2):562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grant KL, Flohr TG, Krauss B, Sedlmair M, Thomas C, Schmidt B (2014) Assessment of an advanced image-based technique to calculate virtual monoenergetic computed tomographic images from a dual-energy examination to improve contrast-to-noise ratio in examinations using iodinated contrast media. Investig Radiol 49(9):586–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Hosokawa T, Tanami Y, Abe T, Kuribayashi S (2014) Abdominal CT: an intra-individual comparison between virtual monochromatic spectral and polychromatic 120-kVp images obtained during the same examination. Eur J Radiol 83(10):1715–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Whiting PF, Sterne JAC, Westwood ME, Bachmann LM, Harbord R, Egger M et al (2008) Graphical presentation of diagnostic information. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu L, Christner JA, Leng S, Wang J, Fletcher JG, McCollough CH (2011) Virtual monochromatic imaging in dual-source dual-energy CT: radiation dose and image quality. Med Phys 38(12):6371–6379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matsumoto K, Jinzaki M, Tanami Y, Ueno A, Yamada M, Kuribayashi S (2011) Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging with fast kilovoltage switching: improved image quality as compared with that obtained with conventional 120-kVp CT. Radiology 259(1):257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin SS, Pfeifer S, Wichmann JL, Albrecht MH, Leithner D, Lenga L, Scholtz JE, Vogl TJ, Bodelle B (2017) Noise-optimized virtual monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography: optimization of kiloelectron volt settings in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Abdom Radiol (New York) 42(3):718–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Albrecht MH, Scholtz J-E, Hüsers K, Beeres M, Bucher AM, Kaup M, Martin SS, Fischer S, Bodelle B, Bauer RW, Lehnert T, Vogl TJ, Wichmann JL (2016) Advanced image-based virtual monoenergetic dual-energy CT angiography of the abdomen: optimization of kiloelectron volt settings to improve image contrast. Eur Radiol 26(6):1863–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Division of Emergency Radiology, Brigham and Women’s HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations