Difficult diagnosis of gout: the benefit of dual energy computed tomography, initial experience in routine clinical practice


Submitted: 18 June 2012
Accepted: 24 April 2013
Published: 16 September 2013
Abstract Views: 1624
PDF: 494
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

  • Vera Löckmann Department of Internal Medicine, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne; Centramed Praxis, Lucerne, Switzerland.
  • Patrick Veit-Haibach Department of Radiology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
  • Lukas Schmid Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Gout, one of the most common inflammatory arthritides in humans, is still difficult to diagnose in challenging situations, when fluid for arthrocentesis or an apparent tophus are absent and, for example, an infection as differential diagnosis has to be ruled out. Dual energy computed tomography (DECT) is an established tool for detection and characterisation of uric acid stones in the urinary tract and has recently been used to detect and display urate deposits. Our first experiences with DECT as a diagnostic tool in routine clinical practice show, that DECT is a promising imaging technique which allows the detection of monosodium urate deposits and benefits the routine diagnosis of tophaceous gout particularly in diffuse soft tissue swelling of the limbs, without the possibility of needle aspiration. However, DECT does not seem suitable to detect dissolved urate crystals, neither in vitro nor in vivo.

Supporting Agencies


Löckmann V., Veit-Haibach, P., & Schmid, L. (2013). Difficult diagnosis of gout: the benefit of dual energy computed tomography, initial experience in routine clinical practice. Rheumatology Reports, 5(1), e5. https://doi.org/10.4081/rr.2013.e5

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations