Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp 2670–2686 | Cite as

Understanding multislice CT urography techniques: many roads lead to Rome

  • Claus Nolte-ErnstingEmail author
  • Nigel Cowan
Urogenital

Abstract

CT urography has emerged as a serious alternative to conventional urography by utilizing the advantages of modern multislice CT techniques for the visualization of the entire upper urinary tract. Several different examination techniques have been developed in multislice CT (MSCT) urography for improving the opacification and distension of the urinary tract. All efforts in performing MSCT urography have to compromise between the best possible image quality and a reasonably low radiation exposure. Initial low-dose examination protocols are already available. Operating modern MSCT urography properly is not difficult, but it presupposes basic knowledge on the variety of current MSCT urography techniques, including such issues as present-day indications, split-bolus injection, compression, saline infusion, low-dose diuretic administration, hybrid scanning, timing of the acquisition delay, examination protocols, postprocessing, image analysis, and radiation exposure. This article is not intended to provide guidelines of how to conduct MSCT urography, but everyone will be able to understand the functionality of several robust operating MSCT urography techniques, which helps making an individual selection for the clinical practice. In the near future, systematic studies are awaited evaluating the morphologic and diagnostic accuracy of MSCT urography regarding diverse urinary tract disorders.

Keywords

Urography Multislice computed tomography Urinary tract Urothelium Kidney 

References

  1. 1.
    Swick M (1929) Darstellung der Nieren und Harnwege im Röntgenbild durch intravenöse Einbringung eines neuen Kontraststoffes des Uroselectans. Klin Wochenschr 8:2087–2089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perlman ES, Rosenfield AT, Wexler JS, Glickman MG (1996) CT urography in the evaluation of urinary tract disease. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20:620–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNicholas MMJ Raptopoulos VD, Schwartz RK, Sheiman RG, Zormpala A, Prassopoulos PK, Ernst RD, Pearlman J (1998) Excretory phase CT urography for opacification of the urinary collecting system. AJR 170:1261–1267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heneghan JP, Kim DH, Leder RA, DeLong D, Nelson RC (2001) Compression CT urography: a comparison with IVU in the opacification of the collecting system and ureters. J Comput Assist Tomogr 25:343–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nolte-Ernsting CCA, Wildberger JE, Borchers H, Schmitz-Rode T, Günther RW (2001) Multi-slice CT urography after diuretic injection: initial results. Fortschr Röntgenstr 173:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chow LC, Sommer FG (2001) Multidetector CT urography with abdominal compression and three-dimensional reconstruction. AJR 177:849–855PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, Platt JF, Francis IR, Faerber GJ, Montie JE, Ellis JH (2002) Urinary tract abnormalities: initial experience with multi-detector row CT urography. Radiology 222:353–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCarthy CL, Cowan NC (2002) Multidetector CT urography (MDCTU) for urothelial imaging. Radiology 225 Suppl:237Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McTavish JD, Jinzaki M, Zou KH, Nawfel RD, Silverman SG (2002) Multi-detector row CT urography: comparison of strategies for depicting the normal urinary collecting system. Radiology 225:783–790PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT (1996) Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR 166:97–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dalla Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R, Stacul F (2001) Present-day imaging of patients with renal colic. Eur Radiol 11:4–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang LJ, Ng CJ, Chen JC, Chiu TF, Wong YC (2004) Diagnosis of acute flank pain caused by ureteral stones: value of combined direct and indirect signs on IVU and unenhanced helical CT. Eur Radiol 14:1634–1640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, Bookbinder MJ, Glickman MG, Richter J, Hamers J, Taylor C, Rosenfield AT (1988) Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/lienar tomography, US, and CT. Radiology 169:363–365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schreyer HH, Uggowitzer MM, Ruppert-Kohlmayr A (2002) Helical CT of the urinary organs. Eur Radiol 12:575–591PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Girish G, Agarwal SK, Salim F, Brown PWG, Morcos SK (2003) Single-phase multislice CT urography: initial experience. Eur Radiol 13(Suppl 1):147Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim JK, Par SY, Kim HJ, Kim CS, Ahn HJ, Ahn TY, Cho KS (2003) Living donor kidneys: usefulness of multi-detector row CT for comprehensive evaluation. Radiology 229:869–876PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joffe SA, Servaes S, Okon S, Horowitz M (2003) Mulit-detector row CT urography in the evaluation of hematuria. Radiographics 23:1441–1456PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kawamoto S, Horton KM, Fishman EK (2004) Computed tomography urography with 16-channel multidetector computed tomography: a pictoral review. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:581–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caoili EM, Inampudi P, Cohan RH, Ellis JH (2005) Optimization of multi-detector row CT urography: effect of compression, saline administration, and prolongation of acquisition delay. Radiology 235:116–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Inampudi P, Ellis JH, Shah RB, Faerber GJ, Montie JE (2005) MDCT urography of upper tract urothelial neoplasms. AJR 184:1873–1881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kemper J, Adam G, Nolte-Ernsting C (2005) Multislice CT urography: aspects for technical management and clinical application. Radiologe 45:905–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Noroozian M, Cohan RH, Caoili EM, Cowan NC, Ellis J (2004) Multislice CT urography: state of the art. Br J Radiol 77:S74–S86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warakaulle DR, Cowan NC (2004) Multi-detector CT urography: image quality analysis of a 2-series, double-bolus technique. Radiology 233 (Suppl S):386Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cowan NC (2005) Multislice CT of urothelial tumors. Eur Radiol 15(Suppl 1):97Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maher MM, Jhaveri KS, Lucey BC, Sahani DV, Saini S, Mueller PR (2001) Does the administration of saline flush during CT urography (CTU) improve ureteric distension and opacification? A prospective study. Radiology 221 Suppl:500Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maher MM, Kaira MK, Rizzo S, Mueller PR, Saini S (2004) Multidetector CT urography in imaging of the urinary tract in patients with hematuria. Korean J Radiol 5:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sudakoff GS, Guralnick M, Langenstroer P, Foley DW, Cihlar KL, Shakespear JS, See WA (2005) CT urography of urinary diversions with enhanced CT digital radiography: preliminary experience. AJR 184:131–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sudakoff GS, Dunn DP, Hellman RS, Laguna MA, Wilson CR, Prost RW, Eastwood DC, Lim HJ (2006) Opacification of the genitourinary collecting system during MDCT urography with enhanced CT digital radiography: nonsaline versus saline bolus. AJR 186:122–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nawfel RD, Judy PF, Schleipman AR, Silverman SG (2004) Patient radiation dose at CT urography and conventional urography. Radiology 232:126–132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kawashima A, Vrtiska TJ, LeRoy AJ, Hartman RP, McCollough CH, King BF Jr (2004) CT urography. Radiographics 24:S35–S58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCollough CH, Bruesewitz MR, Vrtiska TJ, King BF, LeRoy AJ, Quam JP, Hattery RR (2001) Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography. Radiology 221:395–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Korobkin M, Platt JF, Francis IR, Gebremariam A, Ellis JH (2001) Effectiveness of abdominal compression during helical renal CT. Acad Radiol 8:1100–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kemper J, Regier M, Begemann PGC, Stork A, Adam G, Nolte-Ernsting C (2005) Multislice computed tomography-urography: intraindividual comparison of different preparation techniques for optimized depiction of the upper urinary tract in an animal model. Invest Radiol 40:126–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang J, Kim YH, Shankar S, Tyagi G, Baker SP (2006) Multislice CT urography: comparison of two different scanning protocols for improved visualization of the urinary tract. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:33–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raptopoulos V, McNamara A (2005) Improved pelvicalyceal visualization with multidetector computed tomography urography; comparison with helical computed tomography. Eur Radiol 15:1834–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nolte-Ernsting CCA, Bucker A, Adam GB, Neuerburg JM, Jung P, Hunter DW, Jakse G, Günther RW (1998) Gadolinium-enhanced excretory MR urography after low-dose diuretic injection: comparison with conventional excretory urography. Radiology 209:147–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Verswijvel GA, Oyen RH, Van Poppel HP, Goethuys H, Maes B, Vaninbrouckx J, Bosmans H, Marchal G (2000) Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of urologic disease: an all-in-one approach. Eur Radiol 10:1614–1619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Staatz G, Nolte-Ernsting CCA, Adam GB, Hübner D, Rohrmann D, Stollbrink C, Günther RW (2000) Feasibility and utility of respiratory-gated, gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance urography in children. Invest Radiol 35:504–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sudah M, Vanninen R, Partanen K, Heino A, Vainio P, Ala-Opas M (2001) MR urography in evaluation of acute flank pain: T2-weighted sequences and gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional FLASH compared with urography. Fast low-angle shot. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:105–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Blandino A, Gaeta M, Minutoli F, Salamone I, Magno C, Scribano E, Pandolfo I (2002) MR urography of the ureter. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1307–1314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    El-Diasty T, Mansour O, Farouk A (2003) Diuretic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance urography versus intravenous urography for depiction of nondilated urinary tracts. Abdom Imaging 28:135–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jackson EK (1996) Diuretics. In: Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Molinoff PB, Ruddon RW, Goodman Gilman A (eds) Goodman & Gilman’s The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 9th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 691,692,697–701Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kemper J, Regier M, Stork A, Adam G, Nolte-Ernsting C (2006) Multislice-CT-urography: evaluation of a modified scan protocol for optimized opacification of the collecting system. Fortschr Röntgenstr 178:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wall BF, Hart D (1997) Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations. Report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. Br J Radiol 70:437–439PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kemper J, Begemann PGC, Regier M, Stork A, Adam G, Nolte-Ernsting C (2005) Multislice-CT-urography (MSCTU): experimental evaluation of low-dose protocols. Eur Radiol 15(Suppl 1):273Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo-a novel program for dose evaluation in CT. Fortschr Röntgenstr 174:1570–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nagel HD, Blobel J, Brix G, Ewen K, Galanski M, Höfs P, Loose R, Prokop M, Schneider K, Stamm G, Stender HS, Süss C, Türkay S, Vogel H, Wucherer M (2004) Five years of “concerted action dose reduction in CT”-What has been achieved and what remains to be done? Fortschr Röntgenstr 176:1683–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kalra MK, Maher MM, Rizzo S, Saini S (2004) Radiation exposure and projected risks with multidetector-row computed tomography scanning: clinical strategies and technologic developments for dose reduction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:S46–S49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Greess H, Wolf H, Baum U, Lell M, Pirkl M, Kalender W, Bautz WA (2000) Dose reduction in computed tomography by attenuation-based on-line modulation of tube current: evaluation of six anatomical regions. Eur Radiol 10:391–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mueller-Lisse UG, Mueller-Lisse UL, Hinterberger J, Schneede P, Reiser MF (2003) Tri-phasic MDCT in the diagnosis of urothelial cancer. Eur Radiol 13(Suppl 1):146–147Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Abo El-Ghar ME, Shokeir AA, El-Diasty TA, Refaie HF, Gad HM, Shehab El-Dein AB (2004) Contrast enhanced spiral computerized tomography in patients with chronic obstructive uropathy and normal serum creatinine: a single session for anatomical and functional assessment. J Urol 172:985–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Morcos SK, Thomsen HS, Webb JA (1999) Contrast-media-induced nephrotoxicity: a consensus report. Contrast Media Safety Committee, European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Eur Radiol 9:1602–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR 180:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kluner C, Hein PA, Gralla O, Hein E, Hamm B, Romano V, Rogalla P (2006) Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hamm M, Knöpfle E, Wartenberg S, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Harzmann R (2002) Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol 167:1687–1691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe Churchill HospitalOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations