Abstract
Two hundred abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans in 200 patients, 100 performed with low osmolality contrast (ioversol 68%, 100 ml) and 100 performed with high osmolality contrast (diatrizoate meglumine 60%, 150 ml), were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of renal streak artifact. Contrast was administered by hand injection at a rate of approximately 1–2 ml/s and sequential scanning was employed. Of the scans performed with high osmolality contrast, 70% had no artifact, 28% had minimal artifact, and only 2% had marked artifact. Only 26% of the exams performed with low osmolality contrast were artifact-free, whereas 53% demonstrated minimal artifact and 21% demonstrated marked artifact. The likelihood of encountering renal streak artifact when using low osmolality contrast agents is almost seven times greater than when high osmolality contrast agents are used.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
McClennan BL, Rabin DN. Kidney. In: Lee JKT, Sagel SS, Stanley RJ, eds. Computed body tomography with MRI correlation, 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press, 1989:755–826
Bosniak MA. The small (3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controversies. Radiology 1991;179:307–317
Matthews DE, Farewell VT. Using and understanding medical statistics, 2nd ed. New York: Karger, 1988:88–102
Spataro RF, Fischer HW, Boylan L. Urography with lowosmolality contrast media comparative urinary excretion of iopamidol hexabrix, and diatrizoate. Invest Radiol 1982;17:494–500
Brennan RE, Rapoport S, Weinberg I, Pollack HM, Curtis JA. CT-determined canine kidney and urine iodine concentrations following intravenous administration of sodium diatrizoate, metrizamide, iopamidol, and sodium ioxaglate. Invest Radiol 1982;17:95–100
Winfield AC, Dray RJ, Kirchner FK Jr, Muhletaler CA, Price RR. Iohexol for excretory urography: a comparative study. AJR 1983;141:571–573
Wilcox J, Evill CA, Sage MR, Benness GT. Urographic excretion studies with nonionic contrast agents-iopamidol vs. iothalamate. Invest Radiol 1983;18:207–210
Dawson P, Heron C, Marshall J. Intravenous urography with low-osmolality contrast agents: theoretical considerations and clinical findings. Clin Radiol 1984;33:173–175
Loughran CF. Clinical intravenous urography: comparative trial of ioxaglate and iopamidol. Radiology 1986;161:455–458
Cochran ST, Ballard JW, Katzberg RW, et al. Evaluation of iopamidol and diatrizoate in excretory urography. AJR 1988;151:523–527
McClennan BL. Low-osmolality contrast media: premises and promises. Radiology 1987;162:1–8
Bernardino ME, Fishman EK, Jerffery RB, Brown PC. Comparison of iohexol 300 and diatrizoate meglumine 60 for body CT: image quality, adverse reactions, and aborted/repeated examinations. AJR 992;158:665–667
Hiromura T, Terae S, Takamura A, Mizoe J, Morita Y, Irie G. Computed tomography of kidney with diuretics-a method for avoiding artifact due to nonionic contrast medium. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1989;49:857–862
Anderson DJ, Berland. CT techniques. In: Lee JKT, Sagel SS, Stanley RJ, eds. Computed body tomography with MRI correlation, 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press, 1989:31–60
Barner GT, Lakshminarayanan AV. Computed tomography: physical principles and image quality consideration. In: Lee JKT, Sagel SS, Stanley RJ, eds. Computed body tomography with MRI correlation, 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press, 1989:1–21
Curry TS, Dowdey JE, Murry RC. Christenson's introduction to the physics of diagnostic radiology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1984:347–349
Young SW, Muller HH, Marshall WH. Computed tomography: beam hardening and environmental density artifact. Radiology 1983;148:279–283
Magliner AD, Ostrum BJ. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of renal masses. Radiology 1978;126:715–718
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sussman, S.K., Illescas, F.F., Opalacz, J.P. et al. Renal streak artifact during contrast-enhanced CT: Comparison of low versus high osmolality contrast media. Abdom Imaging 18, 180–185 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198059
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00198059