European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 1248–1257 | Cite as

The effect of tube voltage combination on image artefact and radiation dose in dual-source dual-energy CT: comparison between conventional 80/140 kV and 80/150 kV plus tin filter for gout protocol

  • Ji Young JeonEmail author
  • Sheen-Woo Lee
  • Yu Mi Jeong
  • Han Joo Baek



In dual-source CT, dual-energy (DE) performance is affected by various X-ray tube voltage combinations with and without tin filter (Sn). The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of the 80/150 Sn kV voltage combination in terms of image artefact and radiation dose for DECT gout protocol, compared with the conventional 80/140 kV.


Seventy-four patients with suspected gout who underwent dual-source DECT examinations scanned at 80/140 kV (n = 37) and at 80/150 Sn kV (n = 37) were included. Patients’ age, sex, and serum uric acid levels were matched between the two groups. The types and incidence of image artefacts and radiation dose were evaluated.


The 80/150 Sn kV group had significantly fewer patients with artefacts, compared to the 80/140 kV group [11 (30 %) of 37 vs 35 (94.6 %) of 37, p < 0.001]. Except for the motion artefact, the rest of the artefacts—skin, nail bed, submillimetre, motion, vascular, beam-hardening, clumpy artefact along tendon—were significantly less observed in the 80/150 Sn kV acquisitions. The dose-length product (DLP) and effective dose were significantly lower for the 80/150 Sn kV acquisitions compared with the 8s0/140 kV scans (DLP: 104.46 ± 10.66 mGy·cm vs 344.70 ± 56.39 mGy·cm, p < 0.001; effective dose: 1.04 ± 0.11 mSv vs 3.45 ± 0.56 mSv, p < 0.001).


The 80/150 Sn kV voltage combination in dual-source DECT system could be used as one of the artefact reduction methods while reducing radiation dose for gout protocol when compared to the conventional 80/140 kV.

Key Points

• DECT has emerged as the leading modality for non-invasive diagnosis of gout.

• Various X-ray tube voltage combinations are now feasible in dual-source DECT.

• The 80/150 Sn kV acquisition could facilitate artefact reduction in gout protocol.


Gout Tomography, X-ray computed Tin Artefacts Radiation dosage 



American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism


Computed tomography


CT dose index






Dual-source CT


Monosodium urate monohydrate



This work was supported by the Gachon University research fund of 2017 (GCU-2017-5259).


This study has received funding by the Gachon University Research Center, Incheon, South Korea (GCU-2017-5259).

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ji Young Jeon, M.D.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.


• retrospective

• case-control study/observational

• performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Fritz J, Henes JC, Fuld MK, Fishman EK, Horger MS (2016) Dual-energy computed tomography of the knee, ankle, and foot: noninvasive diagnosis of gout and quantification of monosodium urate in tendons and ligaments. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 20:130–135Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Omoumi P, Verdun FR, Guggenberger R, Andreisek G, Becce F (2015) Dual-energy CT: basic principles, technical approaches, and applications in musculoskeletal imaging (Part 2). Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 19:438–445Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nicolaou S, Liang T, Murphy DT, Korzan JR, Ouellette H, Munk P (2012) Dual-energy CT: a promising new technique for assessment of the musculoskeletal system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S78–S86Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson TRC (2012) Dual-energy CT: general principles. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S3–S8Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnson T, Fink C, Schönberg SO, Reiser MF (2011) Dual energy CT in clinical practice, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nicolaou S, Yong-Hing CJ, Galea-Soler S, Hou DJ, Louis L, Munk P (2010) Dual-energy CT as a potential new diagnostic tool in the management of gout in the acute setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1072–1078Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Elmpt W, Landry G, Das M, Verhaegen F (2016) Dual energy CT in radiotherapy: current applications and future outlook. Radiother Oncol 119:137–144Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coupal TM, Mallinson PI, Munk PL, McLaughlin P, Ouellette HA (2015) Latest advances in musculoskeletal dual energy computed tomography (DECT). Curr Radiol Rep 3:23Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khanduri S, Goyal A, Singh B et al (2017) The utility of dual energy computed tomography in musculoskeletal imaging. J Clin Imaging Sci 7:34Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ogdie A, Taylor WJ, Weatherall M et al (2014) Imaging modalities for the classification of gout: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Ann Rheum Dis 74:1868–1874Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bongartz T, Glazebrook KN, Kavros SJ et al (2014) Dual-energy CT for the diagnosis of gout: an accuracy and diagnostic yield study. Ann Rheum Dis 74:1072–1077Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi HK, Burns LC, Shojania K et al (2012) Dual energy CT in gout: a prospective validation study. Ann Rheum Dis 71:1466–1471Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neogi T, Jansen T, Dalbeth N et al (2015) 2015 Gout classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheumatol 67:2557–2568Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glazebrook KN, Guimaraes LS, Murthy NS et al (2011) identification of intraarticular and periarticular uric acid crystals with dual-energy CT: initial evaluation. Radiology 261:516–524Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tashakkor AY, Wang JT, Tso D, Choi HK, Nicolaou S (2012) Dual-energy computed tomography: a valid tool in the assessment of gout? Int J Clin Rheumtol 7:73Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mallinson PI, Coupal T, Reisinger C et al (2014) Artifacts in dual-energy CT gout protocol: a review of 50 suspected cases with an artifact identification guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W103–W109Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chou H, Chin TY, Peh WCG (2017) Dual-energy CT in gout—a review of current concepts and applications. J Med Radiat Sci 64:41–51Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coupal TM, Mallinson PI, Gershony SL et al (2016) Getting the most from your dual-energy scanner: recognizing, reducing, and eliminating artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:119–128Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krauss B, Grant KL, Schmidt BT, Flohr TG (2015) The importance of spectral separation: an assessment of dual-energy spectral separation for quantitative ability and dose efficiency. Invest Radiol 50:114–118Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boos J, Lanzman RS, Heusch P et al (2016) Does body mass index outperform body weight as a surrogate parameter in the calculation of size-specific dose estimates in adult body CT? Br J Radiol 89:20150734Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wrixon AD (2008) New ICRP recommendations. J Radiol Prot 28:161–168Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics:363–374Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim H-Y (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: evaluation of measurement error 2: Dahlberg's error, Bland-Altman method, and Kappa coefficient. Restor Dent Endod 38:182–185Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S et al (2011) Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 64:96–106Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desai MA, Peterson JJ, Garner HW, Kransdorf MJ (2011) Clinical utility of dual-energy CT for evaluation of tophaceous gout. Radiographics 31:1365–1375Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choi HK, Al-Arfaj AM, Eftekhari A et al (2009) Dual energy computed tomography in tophaceous gout. Ann Rheum Dis 68:1609–1612Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dalbeth N, Aati O, Gao A et al (2012) assessment of tophus size a comparison between physical measurement methods and dual-energy computed tomography scanning. J Clin Rheumatol 18:23–27Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pineda C, Amezcua-Guerra LM, Solano C et al (2011) Joint and tendon subclinical involvement suggestive of gouty arthritis in asymptomatic hyperuricemia: an ultrasound controlled study. Arthritis Res Ther 13:R4Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Primak A, Ramirez Giraldo J, Liu X, Yu L, McCollough CH (2009) Improved dual-energy material discrimination for dual-source CT by means of additional spectral filtration. Med Phys 36:1359–1369Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H et al (2010) Characterization of urinary stones with dual-energy CT: improved differentiation using a tin filter. Invest Radiol 45:1–6Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Primak AN, Giraldo JCR, Eusemann CD et al (2010) Dual-source dual-energy CT with additional tin filtration: dose and image quality evaluation in phantoms and in vivo. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1164–1174Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim CR, Jeon JY (2018) Radiation dose and image conspicuity comparison between conventional 120 kVp and 150 kVp with spectral beam shaping for temporal bone CT. Eur J Radiol 102:68–73Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dewes P, Frellesen C, Scholtz J-E et al (2016) Low-dose abdominal computed tomography for detection of urinary stone disease− Impact of additional spectral shaping of the X-ray beam on image quality and dose parameters. Eur J Radiol 85:1058–1062Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henzler T, Fink C, Schoenberg SO, Schoepf UJ (2012) Dual-energy CT: radiation dose aspects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:S16–S25Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haubenreisser H, Meyer M, Sudarski S, Allmendinger T, Schoenberg SO, Henzler T (2015) Unenhanced third-generation dual-source chest CT using a tin filter for spectral shaping at 100kVp. Eur J Radiol 84:1608–1613Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Monu JU, Pope TL Jr (2004) Gout: a clinical and radiologic review. Radiol Clin North Am 42:169–184Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuya K, Shinohara Y, Kato A, Sakamoto M, Kurosaki M, Ogawa T (2017) Reduction of metal artifacts due to dental hardware in computed tomography angiography: assessment of the utility of model-based iterative reconstruction. Neuroradiology 59:231–235Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boudabbous S, Arditi D, Paulin E, Syrogiannopoulou A, Becker C, Montet X (2015) Model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) for the reduction of metal artifacts on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:380–385Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Gil Medical CenterGachon University College of MedicineIncheonRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical CenterGachon University College of MedicineIncheonRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations