Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지

The Use of Contrast-Enhanced Color Doppler Ultrasound in the Differentiation of Retinal Detachment from Vitreous Membrane

  • Sang-Suk Han (Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital College of Medicine, Inje University) ;
  • Seung-Kook Chang (Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital College of Medicine, Inje University) ;
  • Jung-Hee Yoon (Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital College of Medicine, Inje University) ;
  • Young-Joon Lee (Department of Radiology, Busan Paik Hospital College of Medicine, Inje University)
  • Received : 2001.03.10
  • Accepted : 2001.06.27
  • Published : 2001.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical utility of contrast-enhanced color Doppler US in the differentiation of retinal detachment (RD) from vitreous membrane (VM) with that of various conventional US modalities, and to analyze the enhancement patterns in cases showing an enhancement effect. Materials and Methods: In 32 eyes examined over a recent two-year period, RD (n=14) and VM (n=18) were confirmed by surgery (n=28) or clinical follow-up (n=4). In all cases, gray-scale, color Doppler, and power Doppler US were performed prior to contrast injection, and after the intravenous injection of Levovist (Schering, Berlin) by hand for 30 seconds at a dose of 2.5 g and a concentration of 300 mg/mL via an antecubital vein, contrast-enhanced color Doppler US was performed. At Doppler US, the diagnostic criterion for RD and VM was whether or not color signals were visualized in membranous structures. Results: Diagnostic accuracy was 78% at gray-scale US, 81% at color Doppler US, 59% at power Doppler US, and 97% at contrast-enhanced color Doppler US. The sensitivity of color Doppler US to color signals in RD increased from 57% to 93% after contrast enhancement. The enhancement patterns observed were signal accentuation (n=3), signal extension (n=2), signal addition (n=3), and new signal visualization (n=5). Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced color Doppler US was the most accurate US modality for differentiating RD from VM, showing a significantly increased signal detection rate in RD.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a grant from Inje University, 1999.

References

  1. Belden CJ, Abbitt PL, Beadles KA. Color Doppler US of the orbit. RadioGraphics 1995;15:589-608 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.15.3.7624565
  2. Coleman DJ, Jack RL. B-scan ultrasonography in diagnosis and management of retinal detachments. Arch Ophthalmol 1973;90:29-34 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1973.01000050031007
  3. Wong AD, Cooperberg PL, Ross WH, Araki DN. Differentiation of detached retina and vitreous membrane with color flow Doppler. Radiology 1991;178:429-431 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.178.2.1987604
  4. Kerman BM, Coleman DJ. B-scan ultrasonography of retinal detachments. Ann Ophthalmol 1978;10:903-911
  5. Lieb WE. Color Doppler imaging of the eye and orbit. Radiol Clin North Am 1998;36:1059-1071 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70231-1
  6. Rubin JM, Bude RO, Carson PL, Bree RL, Adler RS. Power Doppler US: A potentially useful alternative to mean frequencybased color Doppler US. Radiology 1994;190:853-856 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.190.3.8115639
  7. Giovagnorio F, Quaranta L. Power Doppler sonography enhances visualization of orbital vessels. J Ultrasound Med 1995;14:837-842 https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1995.14.11.837
  8. Wermke W, Ga mann B. Tumour diagnostics of the liver with echo enhancers - colour atlas. Berlin : Springer-Verlag, 1998:15
  9. Melany ML, Grant EG. Clinical experience with sonographic contrast agents. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997;18:3-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2171(97)90033-0
  10. Lemke AJ, Hosten N, Richter M, et al. Contrast-enhanced color Doppler sonography of uveal melanomas. J Clin Ultrasound 2001;29:205-211 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1021
  11. Wells RG, Miro P, Brummond R. Color-flow Doppler sonography of persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous. J Ultrasound Med 1991;10:405-407  https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1991.10.7.405