Iterative metal artefact reduction in CT: can dedicated algorithms improve image quality after spinal instrumentation?

被引:18
作者
Aissa, J. [1 ]
Thomas, C. [1 ]
Sawicki, L. M. [1 ]
Caspers, J. [1 ]
Kroepil, P. [1 ]
Antoch, G. [1 ]
Boos, J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dusseldorf, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Fac Med, Moorenstr 5, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
关键词
DUAL-ENERGY CT; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; VIVO EVALUATION; RECONSTRUCTIONS; IMPLANTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.crad.2016.12.006
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
AIM: To investigate the value of dedicated computed tomography (CT) iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) algorithms in patients after spinal instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-surgical spinal CT images of 24 patients performed between March 2015 and July 2016 were retrospectively included. Images were reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with two dedicated iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1, adjusted to spinal instrumentations and iMAR-Algo2, adjusted to large metallic hip implants) using a medium smooth kernel (B30f) and a sharp kernel (B70f). Frequencies of density changes were quantified to assess objective image quality. Image quality was rated subjectively by evaluating the visibility of critical anatomical structures including the central canal, the spinal cord, neural foramina, and vertebral bone. RESULTS: Both iMAR algorithms significantly reduced artefacts from metal compared with WFBP (p< 0.0001). Results of subjective image analysis showed that both iMAR algorithms led to an improvement in visualisation of soft-tissue structures (median iMAR-Algo1 = 3; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.5-3; iMAR-Algo2 = 4; IQR: 3.5-4) and bone structures (iMAR-Algo1 = 3; IQR: 3-4; iMAR-Algo2 = 4; IQR: 4-5) compared to WFBP (soft tissue: median 2; IQR: 0.5-2 and bone structures: median 2; IQR: 1-3; p< 0.0001). Compared with iMAR-Algo1, objective artefact reduction and subjective visualisation of soft-tissue and bone structures were improved with iMAR-Algo2 (p< 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both iMAR algorithms reduced artefacts compared with WFBP, however, the iMAR algorithm with dedicated settings for large metallic implants was superior to the algorithm specifically adjusted to spinal implants. (C) 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:428.e7 / 428.e12
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   Metal Artifact Reduction in Computed Tomography After Deep Brain Stimulation Electrode Placement Using Iterative Reconstructions [J].
Aissa, Joel ;
Boos, Johannes ;
Schleich, Christoph ;
Sedlmair, Martin ;
Krzymyk, Karl ;
Kroepil, Patric ;
Antoch, Gerald ;
Thomas, Christoph .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2017, 52 (01) :18-22
[2]   Iterative reconstruction methods in X-ray CT [J].
Beister, Marcel ;
Kolditz, Daniel ;
Kalender, Willi A. .
PHYSICA MEDICA-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2012, 28 (02) :94-108
[3]   Metal artifact reduction (MAR) based on two-compartment physical modeling: evaluation in patients with hip implants [J].
Boos, Johannes ;
Sawicki, Lino Morris ;
Lanzman, Rotem Shlomo ;
Thomas, Christoph ;
Aissa, Joel ;
Schleich, Christoph ;
Heusch, Philipp ;
Antoch, Gerald ;
Kroepil, Patric .
ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2017, 58 (01) :70-76
[4]   Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels [J].
Guggenberger, R. ;
Winklhofer, S. ;
Osterhoff, G. ;
Wanner, G. A. ;
Fortunati, M. ;
Andreisek, G. ;
Alkadhi, H. ;
Stolzmann, P. .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (11) :2357-2364
[5]   Metal Artifact Reduction in Pelvic Computed Tomography With Hip Prostheses Comparison of Virtual Monoenergetic Extrapolations From Dual-Energy Computed Tomography and an Iterative Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithmin a Phantom Study [J].
Higashigaito, Kai ;
Angst, Florian ;
Runge, Val M. ;
Alkadhi, Hatem ;
Donati, Olivio F. .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2015, 50 (12) :828-834
[6]   REDUCTION OF CT ARTIFACTS CAUSED BY METALLIC IMPLANTS [J].
KALENDER, WA ;
HEBEL, R ;
EBERSBERGER, J .
RADIOLOGY, 1987, 164 (02) :576-577
[7]   CT Metal Artifact Reduction in the Spine: Can an Iterative Reconstruction Technique Improve Visualization? [J].
Kotsenas, A. L. ;
Michalak, G. J. ;
DeLone, D. R. ;
Diehn, F. E. ;
Grant, K. ;
Halaweish, A. F. ;
Krauss, A. ;
Raupach, R. ;
Schmidt, B. ;
McCollough, C. H. ;
Fletcher, J. G. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY, 2015, 36 (11) :2184-2190
[8]   MEASUREMENT OF OBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL DATA [J].
LANDIS, JR ;
KOCH, GG .
BIOMETRICS, 1977, 33 (01) :159-174
[9]   Metal artefact reduction in gemstone spectral imaging dual-energy CT with and without metal artefact reduction software [J].
Lee, Young Han ;
Park, Kwan Kyu ;
Song, Ho-Taek ;
Kim, Sungjun ;
Suh, Jin-Suck .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (06) :1331-1340
[10]  
Mahnken AH, 2003, INVEST RADIOL, V38, P769, DOI 10.1097/01.rli.0000086495.96457.54