Evidence Hub

Dual-Source Dual-Energy CT in Detection and Characterization of Urinary Stones in Patients With Large Body Habitus: Observations in a Large Cohort

Hamed Kordbacheh, V. Baliyan, R. Uppot, B. Eisner, D. Sahani, A. Kambadakone

AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2019

105 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to investigate the impact of large body habitus on dual-energy CT (DECT) image quality and stone characterization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively included 105 consecutive patients with large body habitus (> 90 kg) who underwent stone protocol DECT between 2015 and 2017. The evaluation of DECT datasets was performed for image quality assessment based on European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography and for determination of stone composition (i.e., uric acid vs non-uric acid). Correlation between DECT characterization and crystallography results was performed when available. The cohort was divided into two groups on the basis of body weight (≤ 104 kg and > 104 kg), and comparisons were made for image quality and stone characterization.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven urinary tract calculi (size: mean ± SD, 5.7 ± 5.3 mm; range, 1.4-56 mm) were detected in 73% (79/108) of examinations in 105 patients (weight: mean ± SD, 104.0 ± 12.7 kg; range, 91-163 kg). The overall mean image quality score of blended images and color maps was 3.7 and 3.9, respectively, and the effective dual-energy FOV limitation did not hamper stone characterization. The diagnostic acceptability scores of blended images and color maps were slightly lower in patients weighing > 104 kg than in patients ≤ 104 kg (mean scores [highest score, 4 points]: blended images, 3.62 vs 3.82 [p = 0.0314]; color maps, 3.75 vs 3.98 [p = 0.0034]), but the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 105 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free