Young Han Lee1, Kwan Kyu Park, Ho-Taek Song, Sungjun Kim, Jin-Suck Suh. 1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Medical Convergence Research Institute, and Severance Biomedical Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of gemstone spectral imaging (GSI) dual-energy CT (DECT) with/without metal artefact reduction software (MARs). METHODS: The DECTs were performed using fast kV-switching GSI between 80 and 140 kV. The CT data were retro-reconstructed with/without MARs, by different displayed fields-of-view (DFOV), and with synthesised monochromatic energy in the range 40-140 keV. A phantom study of size and CT numbers was performed in a titanium plate and a stainless steel plate. A clinical study was performed in 26 patients with metallic hardware. All images were retrospectively reviewed in terms of the visualisation of periprosthetic regions and the severity of beam-hardening artefacts by using a five-point scale. RESULTS: The GSI-MARs reconstruction can markedly reduce the metal-related artefacts, and the image quality was affected by the prosthesis composition and DFOV. The spectral CT numbers of the prosthesis and periprosthetic regions showed different patterns on stainless steel and titanium plates. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT with GSI-MARs can reduce metal-related artefacts and improve the delineation of the prosthesis and periprosthetic region. We should be cautious when using GSI-MARs because the image quality was affected by the prosthesis composition, energy (in keV) and DFOV. The metallic composition and size should be considered in metallic imaging with GSI-MARs reconstruction. KEY POINTS: • Metal-related artefacts can be troublesome on musculoskeletal computed tomography (CT). • Gemstone spectral imaging (GSI) with dual-energy CT (DECT) offers a novel solution • GSI and metallic artefact reduction software (GSI-MAR) can markedly reduce these artefacts. • However image quality is influenced by the prosthesis composition and other parameters. • We should be aware about potential overcorrection when using GSI-MARs.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the usefulness of gemstone spectral imaging (GSI) dual-energy CT (DECT) with/without metal artefact reduction software (MARs). METHODS: The DECTs were performed using fast kV-switching GSI between 80 and 140 kV. The CT data were retro-reconstructed with/without MARs, by different displayed fields-of-view (DFOV), and with synthesised monochromatic energy in the range 40-140 keV. A phantom study of size and CT numbers was performed in a titanium plate and a stainless steel plate. A clinical study was performed in 26 patients with metallic hardware. All images were retrospectively reviewed in terms of the visualisation of periprosthetic regions and the severity of beam-hardening artefacts by using a five-point scale. RESULTS: The GSI-MARs reconstruction can markedly reduce the metal-related artefacts, and the image quality was affected by the prosthesis composition and DFOV. The spectral CT numbers of the prosthesis and periprosthetic regions showed different patterns on stainless steel and titanium plates. CONCLUSION: Dual-energy CT with GSI-MARs can reduce metal-related artefacts and improve the delineation of the prosthesis and periprosthetic region. We should be cautious when using GSI-MARs because the image quality was affected by the prosthesis composition, energy (in keV) and DFOV. The metallic composition and size should be considered in metallic imaging with GSI-MARs reconstruction. KEY POINTS: • Metal-related artefacts can be troublesome on musculoskeletal computed tomography (CT). • Gemstone spectral imaging (GSI) with dual-energy CT (DECT) offers a novel solution • GSI and metallic artefact reduction software (GSI-MAR) can markedly reduce these artefacts. • However image quality is influenced by the prosthesis composition and other parameters. • We should be aware about potential overcorrection when using GSI-MARs.
Authors: F A Dilmanian; X Y Wu; E C Parsons; B Ren; J Kress; T M Button; L D Chapman; J A Coderre; F Giron; D Greenberg; D J Krus; Z Liang; S Marcovici; M J Petersen; C T Roque; M Shleifer; D N Slatkin; W C Thomlinson; K Yamamoto; Z Zhong Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1997-02 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: T M Link; W Berning; S Scherf; U Joosten; A Joist; K Engelke; H E Daldrup-Link Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2000 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Dierks; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Naveen M Kulkarni; Lorenzo Mannelli; Marc Zins; Priya R Bhosale; Hina Arif-Tiwari; Olga R Brook; Elizabeth M Hecht; Fay Kastrinos; Zhen Jane Wang; Erik V Soloff; Parag P Tolat; Guillermo Sangster; Jason Fleming; Eric P Tamm; Avinash R Kambadakone Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-03
Authors: Wei Zhou; David J Bartlett; Felix E Diehn; Katrina N Glazebrook; Amy L Kotsenas; Rickey E Carter; Joel G Fletcher; Cynthia H McCollough; Shuai Leng Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Yue Dong; Ai Jun Shi; Jian Lin Wu; Ru Xin Wang; Li Fei Sun; Ai Lian Liu; Yi Jun Liu Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Martijn F Boomsma; Mireille A Edens; Christiaan P Van Lingen; Niek Warringa; Harmen B Ettema; Cees C P M Verheyen; Mario Maas Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 2.199
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: A L Kotsenas; G J Michalak; D R DeLone; F E Diehn; K Grant; A F Halaweish; A Krauss; R Raupach; B Schmidt; C H McCollough; J G Fletcher Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 3.825