Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic imaging of gout: comparison of high-resolution US versus conventional X-ray

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim was to compare X-ray and ultrasound (US) in diagnosing gout. In a prospective study, 105 consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of gout underwent conventional X-ray und high-resolution US in order to help in arriving at a definite diagnosis. X-ray findings suggestive of gout included soft-tissue opacifications with densities between soft tissue and bone, articular and periarticular bone erosions, and osteophytes at the margins of opacifications or erosions. US findings suggestive of gout included bright stippled foci and hyperechoic soft-tissue areas. Fifty-five patients had a definite diagnosis of gout (102 involved sites), 31 patients were diagnosed as having another disease (59 involved sites), and 19 patients were excluded from the study because a definite diagnosis could not be established. X-ray suggested gout with a sensitivity of 31% (32/102) and a specificity of 93% (55/59), whereas US suggested gout with a sensitivity of 96% (98/102) and a specificity of 73% (43/59). US was much more sensitive than conventional X-ray but less specific. Our data show that US often provided additional diagnostic information in patients with clinical suspicion of gout when laboratory findings and X-ray results were negative or inconclusive and should therefore be used in these cases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a–d
Fig. 2a–d
Fig. 3a–d
Fig. 4
Fig. 5a–d
Fig. 6a–c
Fig. 7a, b
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Watt I (1997) Basic differential diagnosis of arthritis. Eur Radiol 7:344–351

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Terkeltaub RA (2003) Gout. N Engl J Med 349:1647–1655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gentili A (2006) The advanced imaging of gouty tophi. Curr Rheumatol Rep 8:231–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Feydy A, Liote F, Carlier R, Chevrot A, Drape JL (2006) Cervical spine and crystal-associated diseases: imaging findings. Eur Radiol 16:459–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Monu JU, Pope TL Jr (2004) Gout: a clinical and radiologic review. Radiol Clin North Am 42:169–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bloch C, Hermann G, Yu TF (1980) A radiologic reevaluation of gout: a study of 2,000 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 134:781–787

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Grassi W, Filippucci E, Farina A, Cervini C (2000) Sonographic imaging of the distal phalanx. Semin Arthritis Rheum 29:379–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lyburn ID, Torreggiani WC, Harris AC, Zwirewich CV, Munk PL (2002) Tophaceous podagra: ultrasound diagnosis. Hosp Med 63:48–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gerster JC, Landry M, Dufresne L, Meuwly JY (2002) Imaging of tophaceous gout: computed tomography provides specific images compared with magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 61:52–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Falasca GF (2006) Metabolic diseases: gout. Clinics? Dermatol 24:498–508

    Google Scholar 

  11. Balbir-Gurman A, Nahir AM, Braun-Moscovici Y, Soudack M (2005) Sonographic features of a tophaceous nodule. Isr Med Assoc J 7:746–747

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nalbant S, Corominas H, Hsu B, Chen LX, Schumacher RH, Kitumnuaypong T (2003) Ultrasonography for assessment of subcutaneous nodules. J Rheumatol 30:1191–1195

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. O’Leary ST, Goldberg JA, Walsh WR (2003) Tophaceous gout of the rotator cuff: a case report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:200–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wakefield RJ, Emery P, Pease C (2003) Gout related upper limb cellulitis: an ultrasound study. J Rheumatol 30:417–419

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grassi W, Meenagh G, Pascual E, Filippucci E (2006) “Crystal clear”—Sonographic assessment of gout and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Semin Arthritis Rheum 36:197–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wright SA, Filippucci E, McVeigh C, Grey A, McCarron M, Grassi W, Wright GD, Taggart AJ (2007) High-resolution ultrasonography of the 1st metatarsal phalangeal joint in gout: a controlled study. Ann Rheum Dis 66:859–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ho CF, Chiou HJ, Chou YH, Chang CY (2003) Peritendinous lesions: the role of high-resolution ultrasonography. J Clin Imag 27:239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Coombs PR, Houseman N, White R (2006) Chronic tophaceous gout of the third flexor digitorum profundus tendon in the hand: An unusual sonography diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:313–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Farina A, Filippucci E, Grassi W (2002) Sonographic findings of the synovial fluid. Reumatismo 54:261–265

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. van der Jagt EJ, Hofman S, Kraft BM, van Leeuwen MA (2000) Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur Radiol 10:304–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sammak B, Abd El Bagi M, Al Shahed M, Hamilton D, Al Nabulsi J, Youssef B, Al Thagafi M (1999) Osteomyelitis: a review of currently used imaging techniques. Eur Radiol 9:894–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Watt I, Middlemiss H (1975) The radiology of gout. Clin Radiol 26:27–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Brailsford JF (1959) The radiology of gout. Br J Radiol 32:472–478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Berens DL (1978) Roentgenographic changes in gout. Postgrad Med 63:154–161

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Resnick D (1977) The radiologic manifestations of gouty arthritis. Clin Rev Diagn Imaging 9:265–335

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Huber N (1896) Zur Verwerthung der Roentgen-Strahlen im Gebiete der inneren Medicin [The use of X-rays in internal medicine]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 22:182–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Martel W (1968) The overhanging margin of bone: a roentgenologic manifestation of gout. Radiology 91:755–756

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gerster JC, Landry M, Rappoport G, Rivier G, Duvoisin B, Schnyder P (1996) Enthesopathy and tendinopathy in gout: computed tomographic assessment. Ann Rheum Dis 55:921–923

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin J, Jacobson JA, Fessel DP, Weadock WJ (2000) An illustrated tutorial of musculoskeletal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1711–1719

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kane D, Grassi W, Sturrock R (2004) Musculoskeletal ultrasound—a state of the art review in rheumatology. Part 2: Clinical indications for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Rheumatology (Oxford) 43:829–838

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Horcajadas AB, Lafuente JL, de la Cruz Burgos R, Muniz SH, Roca SA, Ortega SG, Franjo PD, Cruz EO (2003) Ultrasound and MR findings in tumor and tumor-like lesions of the fingers. Eur Radiol 13:672–685

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Magarelli N, Guglielmi G, Di Matteo L, Tartaro A, Mattei PA, Bonomo L (2001) Diagnostic utility of an echo-contrast agent in patients with synovitis using power Doppler ultrasound: a preliminary study with comparison to contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 11:1039–1046

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Thomas Rettenbacher, Sybille Ennemoser & Harald Weirich

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Frank Hartig, Werner Klotz & Manfred Herold

  3. Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Health Economics, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Hanno Ulmer

Authors
  1. Thomas Rettenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sybille Ennemoser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harald Weirich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanno Ulmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Frank Hartig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Werner Klotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manfred Herold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Rettenbacher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rettenbacher, T., Ennemoser, S., Weirich, H. et al. Diagnostic imaging of gout: comparison of high-resolution US versus conventional X-ray. Eur Radiol 18, 621–630 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0802-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0802-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation