Consistency and difference analysis of ultrasound and dual-energy computed tomography in assessing gouty knee arthritis
10.3760/cma.j.cn131148-20240122-00055
- VernacularTitle:超声与双能计算机断层扫描评估痛风性膝关节炎的一致性及差异分析
- Author:
Mengmeng YAN
1
;
Meixia DU
;
Lishan XIAO
;
Yuchen LI
;
Xiaoli LI
;
Cheng ZHAO
;
Chunping NING
Author Information
1. 青岛大学附属医院腹部超声科，青岛 266000
- Keywords:
Ultrasonography;
Gout;
Knee joint;
Tomography
- From:
Chinese Journal of Ultrasonography
2024;33(7):597-602
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To assess the consistency of ultrasound and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the diagnosis of gouty arthritis(GA), reasons of the differences were further analyzed.Methods:The ultrasound and DECT images of 150 knee joints from 147 patients diagnosed with gout at the Gout Specialty Clinic of Qingdao University Affiliated Hospital from February 2022 to October 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. According to anatomy, the knee joint was anatomically segmented into five regions: intra-articular, anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral.Location of monosodium urate (MSU) deposition was meticulously recorded. The Kappa consistency test was employed to assess the consistency of the two examination results in different regions of the knee joint. The McNemar chi-square test was utilized to conduct a differential analysis between DECT and ultrasound results.Results:Double contour sign(DCS) (81.2%, 92/112) was the most common intra-articular ultrasound sign in knee joints with GA. In the extra-articular region, MSU was commonly deposited in and around the popliteal tendon (ultrasound: 51.6%, 66/128; DECT: 54.7%, 70/128). Corresponding MSU deposits on DECT were found in 9 of 92 joints with DCS and in 9 of 49 joints with aggregates detected on ultrasound.In the assessment of MSU deposits, ultrasound showed an overall higher positive rate than DECT (87.3% vs. 72.3%, P=0.001), with poor consistency between the two examinations (Kappa=0.153). In distinct anatomical regions, ultrasound and DECT showed high consistency in the medial (Kappa=0.697) and lateral (Kappa=0.718) sides and the difference was not statistically significant ( P>0.05). Intra-articular (Kappa=0.289) and anterior (Kappa=0.303) regions exhibited only fair consistency, with statistically significant diagnostic differences ( P<0.05). When exclusively assessing cases with tophus, ultrasound and DECT demonstrated high consistency in the medial and lateral aspects(Kappa=0.685, 0.748) without statistical difference ( P>0.05). In the anterior region, the consistency between the two examinations was moderate (Kappa=0.256), while in the intra-articular region, the consistency of the two methods was lower (Kappa=0.147), and the differences was statistically significant ( P<0.001). Conclusions:Both ultrasound and DECT exhibit good diagnostic capabilities for gouty knee arthritis.However, the consistency between the two techniques varies in different anatomical locations. Clinical assessment should be tailored based on the specific anatomical position. DECT has an advantage in evaluating intra-articular MSU deposits, while ultrasound is more sensitive to detect early and scattered MSU deposits.
