Display options
Share it on

Cureus. 2017 Jan 20;9(1):e985. doi: 10.7759/cureus.985.

Role of Dual Energy Computed Tomography Imaging in the Diagnosis of Gout.

Cureus

Divya Jayakumar, Shiv T Sehra, Suneesh Anand, Gary W Stallings, Abhijeet Danve

Affiliations

  1. Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College.
  2. Mount Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
  3. Covenant Medical Center, Central Michigan University.
  4. New York Medical College.
  5. Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine.

PMID: 28229032 PMCID: PMC5318147 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.985

Abstract

Gout is a well-known inflammatory arthritis and affects four percent of the United States population. It results from the deposition of uric acid crystals in joints, tendons, bursae, and other surrounding tissues. Prevalence of gout has increased in the recent decade. Gout is usually seen in conjunction with other chronic comorbid conditions like cardiac disease, metabolic syndrome, and renal disease. The diagnosis of this inflammatory arthritis is confirmed by visualization of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in the synovial fluid. Though synovial fluid aspiration is the standard of care, it is often deferred because of inaccessibility of small joints, patient assessment during intercritical period, or procedural inexperience in a primary care office. Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) is a relatively new imaging modality which shows great promise in the diagnosis of gout. It is a good noninvasive alternative to synovial fluid aspiration. DECT is increasingly useful in diagnosing cases of gout where synovial fluid fails to demonstrate monosodium urate crystals. In this article, we will review the mechanism, types, advantages, and disadvantages of DECT.

Keywords: dect; dual energy ct; gout; monosodium urate crystals

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Arthritis Res Ther. 2006;8 Suppl 1:S1 - PubMed
  2. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016 Jun;45(6):663-8 - PubMed
  3. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Jan;42(1):169-84 - PubMed
  4. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Oct;74(10):1789-98 - PubMed
  5. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jun;74(6):1072-7 - PubMed
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jan;206(1):119-28 - PubMed
  7. Arthritis Res Ther. 2011;13(6):246 - PubMed
  8. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 Sep;67(9):1304-15 - PubMed
  9. Clin Radiol. 2011 Oct;66(10 ):984-92 - PubMed
  10. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Apr;194(4):1072-8 - PubMed
  11. Nat Med. 2014 May;20(5):511-7 - PubMed
  12. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Sep;71(9):1466-71 - PubMed
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S3-8 - PubMed
  14. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2016 Feb;20(1):130-6 - PubMed
  15. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S78-86 - PubMed
  16. Clin Rheumatol. 2014 Apr;33(4):555-9 - PubMed
  17. Radiology. 2011 Nov;261(2):516-24 - PubMed
  18. Ir Med J. 2008 May;101(5):147-9 - PubMed
  19. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Jul;203(1):W103-9 - PubMed
  20. Clin Imaging. 2015 Sep-Oct;39(5):880-5 - PubMed
  21. Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Oct;63(10):3136-41 - PubMed

Publication Types