OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the performance and diagnostic value of a dual energy CT approach to reduce metal artefacts in subjects with metallic implants. METHODS: 31 patients were examined in the area of their metallic implants using a dual energy CT protocol (filtered 140 kVp and 100 kVp spectrum, tube current relation: 3:1). Specific post-processing was applied to generate energies of standard 120 and 140 kVp spectra as well as a filtered 140 kVp spectrum with mean photon energies of 64, 69 and 88 keV, respectively, and an optimized hard spectrum of 95-150 keV. Image quality and diagnostic value were subjectively and objectively determined. RESULTS: Image quality was rated superior to the standard image in 29/31 high energy reconstructions; the diagnostic value was rated superior in 27 patients. Image quality and diagnostic value scores improved significantly from 3.5 to 2.1 and from 3.6 to 1.9, respectively. In several exams decisive diagnostic features were only discernible in the high energy reconstructions. The density of the artefacts decreased from -882 to -341 HU. CONCLUSIONS: Dual Energy CT with specific postprocessing can reduce metal artefacts and may significantly enhance diagnostic value in the evaluation of metallic implants.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the performance and diagnostic value of a dual energy CT approach to reduce metal artefacts in subjects with metallic implants. METHODS: 31 patients were examined in the area of their metallic implants using a dual energy CT protocol (filtered 140 kVp and 100 kVp spectrum, tube current relation: 3:1). Specific post-processing was applied to generate energies of standard 120 and 140 kVp spectra as well as a filtered 140 kVp spectrum with mean photon energies of 64, 69 and 88 keV, respectively, and an optimized hard spectrum of 95-150 keV. Image quality and diagnostic value were subjectively and objectively determined. RESULTS: Image quality was rated superior to the standard image in 29/31 high energy reconstructions; the diagnostic value was rated superior in 27 patients. Image quality and diagnostic value scores improved significantly from 3.5 to 2.1 and from 3.6 to 1.9, respectively. In several exams decisive diagnostic features were only discernible in the high energy reconstructions. The density of the artefacts decreased from -882 to -341 HU. CONCLUSIONS: Dual Energy CT with specific postprocessing can reduce metal artefacts and may significantly enhance diagnostic value in the evaluation of metallic implants.
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Bernhard Krauss; Martin Sedlmair; Michael Grasruck; Herbert Bruder; Dominik Morhard; Christian Fink; Sabine Weckbach; Miriam Lenhard; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas Flohr; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sven F Thieme; Sandra Hoegl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Juergen Fisahn; Michael Irlbeck; Daniel Maxien; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-06-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: N Haramati; R B Staron; K Mazel-Sperling; K Freeman; E L Nickoloff; C Barax; F Feldman Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 1994 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Michael Staehler; Dirk A Clevert; Michael Macari; Niko Arndt; Konstantin Nikolaou; Wieland Sommer; Christian Stief; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: David R Holmes; Joel G Fletcher; Anja Apel; James E Huprich; Hassan Siddiki; David M Hough; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas G Flohr; Richard Robb; Cynthia McCollough; Michael Wittmer; Christian Eusemann Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-11-05 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Markus Bader; Michael Staehler; Nicolas Haseke; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christian G Stief; Christoph R Becker Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Lifeng Yu; Hua Li; Jan Mueller; James M Kofler; Xin Liu; Andrew N Primak; Joel G Fletcher; Luis S Guimaraes; Thanila Macedo; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: R Guggenberger; S Winklhofer; G Osterhoff; G A Wanner; M Fortunati; G Andreisek; H Alkadhi; P Stolzmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stefanie Mangold; Paola M Cannaó; U Joseph Schoepf; Julian L Wichmann; Christian Canstein; Stephen R Fuller; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Akos Varga-Szemes; Konstantin Nikolaou; Carlo N De Cecco Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Lenhard Pennig; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe; Nils Große Hokamp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Benjamin M Yeh; Paul F FitzGerald; Peter M Edic; Jack W Lambert; Robert E Colborn; Michael E Marino; Paul M Evans; Jeannette C Roberts; Zhen J Wang; Margaret J Wong; Peter J Bonitatibus Journal: Adv Drug Deliv Rev Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 15.470