Color Doppler Energy(CDE): Initial Ten-Months Experience.
10.3348/jkrs.1996.34.6.805
- Author:
Young Jin RO
1
;
Kook Sang HAN
;
Sang Hwa NAM
;
Keum Seob LEE
;
Hyun Ju SON
;
Suck Hong LEE
;
Byung Soo KIM
;
Se Kwon SHIN
Author Information
1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, College of Medicine, Pusan National University, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Ultrasonography(US), Doppler studies;
Ultrasonography(US), technology
- MeSH:
Angiomyolipoma;
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular;
Epididymitis;
Humans;
Hyperemia;
Inflammation;
Kidney;
Male;
Noise;
Testis;
Varicocele;
Varicose Veins
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
1996;34(6):805-810
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Color Doppler Imaging(CDI) has shortcomings, including random noise, aliasing, and angle dependence. To overcome these, a method using CD US, termed power doppler or Color Doppler Energy(CDE), has recently been introduced. The purpose of this study was to show the clinical usefulness of CDE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the CDI and CDE of 61 cases(20 renal pseudotumors, 8 musculoskeletal inflammations, 17epididymitis or epididymo-orchitis, 3 vaicoceles, 1 normal testis, 1 hepatocellualar carcinoma, 7 renal cell carcinomas, 1 renal angiomyolipoma, and 3 splenic varices). CDI and CDE scans were obtained at the same region with constant scan plane. The color gain was increased until noise first became perceptible, and scans were always obtained in such a way that the maximum amount af vascularity was shown. There after, the vascularity, vascular displacement, and the vascular relationship between CDI and CDE were compared. RESULT: In 17 of 20 cases of pseudotumor in the kidney, normal vascularity was identified in CDI and CDE, but was more clearly visible in CDE. In three cases, there was no visible vascularity in CDI, but normal vascularity in CDE. In eight cases of musculoskeletal inflammation and 17 cases of epididymitis with or without or chitis, the vascularity was increased due to hyperemia, which was more prominently seen in CDE than in CDI. In three varicoceles, CDE appeared to bebetter in demonstration low velocity flow. In one patient who was suspected of having acute testicular torsion, CDE was helpful in excluding this suspicion. In one case of hepatocellular carcinoma, seven cases of renal cell carcinoma, one case of renal angiomyolipoma, and three cases of splenic varices, CDE was better than CDI in showing the vascularity, vascular relationship, and vascular displacement. CONCLUSION: CDE is a potential lyuseful adjunct to standard CDI.
