OBJECTIVES: To evaluate optimal monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) settings for artefact reduction of posterior spinal fusion implants of various vendors and spine levels. METHODS: Posterior spinal fusion implants of five vendors for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine were examined ex vivo with single-energy (SE) CT (120 kVp) and DECT (140/100 kVp). Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimised image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Two independent radiologists assessed quantitative and qualitative image parameters for each device and spine level. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreements of quantitative and qualitative parameters were high (ICC = 0.81-1.00, κ = 0.54-0.77). HU values of spinal fusion implants were significantly different among vendors (P < 0.001), spine levels (P < 0.01) and among SECT, monoenergetic DECT of 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and OPTkeV (P < 0.01). Image quality was significantly (P < 0.001) different between datasets and improved with higher monoenergies of DECT compared with SECT (V = 0.58, P < 0.001). Artefacts decreased significantly (V = 0.51, P < 0.001) at higher monoenergies. OPTkeV values ranged from 123-141 keV. OPTkeV according to vendor and spine level are presented herein. CONCLUSIONS: Monoenergetic DECT provides significantly better image quality and less metallic artefacts from implants than SECT. Use of individual keV values for vendor and spine level is recommended. KEY POINTS: • Artefacts pose problems for CT following posterior spinal fusion implants. • CT images are interpreted better with monoenergetic extrapolation using dual-energy (DE) CT. • DECT extrapolation improves image quality and reduces metallic artefacts over SECT. • There were considerable differences in monoenergy values among vendors and spine levels. • Use of individualised monoenergy values is indicated for different metallic hardware devices.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate optimal monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) settings for artefact reduction of posterior spinal fusion implants of various vendors and spine levels. METHODS: Posterior spinal fusion implants of five vendors for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine were examined ex vivo with single-energy (SE) CT (120 kVp) and DECT (140/100 kVp). Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimised image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Two independent radiologists assessed quantitative and qualitative image parameters for each device and spine level. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreements of quantitative and qualitative parameters were high (ICC = 0.81-1.00, κ = 0.54-0.77). HU values of spinal fusion implants were significantly different among vendors (P < 0.001), spine levels (P < 0.01) and among SECT, monoenergetic DECT of 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and OPTkeV (P < 0.01). Image quality was significantly (P < 0.001) different between datasets and improved with higher monoenergies of DECT compared with SECT (V = 0.58, P < 0.001). Artefacts decreased significantly (V = 0.51, P < 0.001) at higher monoenergies. OPTkeV values ranged from 123-141 keV. OPTkeV according to vendor and spine level are presented herein. CONCLUSIONS: Monoenergetic DECT provides significantly better image quality and less metallic artefacts from implants than SECT. Use of individual keV values for vendor and spine level is recommended. KEY POINTS: • Artefacts pose problems for CT following posterior spinal fusion implants. • CT images are interpreted better with monoenergetic extrapolation using dual-energy (DE) CT. • DECT extrapolation improves image quality and reduces metallic artefacts over SECT. • There were considerable differences in monoenergy values among vendors and spine levels. • Use of individualised monoenergy values is indicated for different metallic hardware devices.
Authors: Hengyong Yu; Kai Zeng; Deepak K Bharkhada; Ge Wang; Mark T Madsen; Osama Saba; Bruno Policeni; Matthew A Howard; Wendy R K Smoker Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Kenneth A Buckwalter; J Andrew Parr; Robert H Choplin; William N Capello Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: Annette C Douglas-Akinwande; Kenneth A Buckwalter; Jonas Rydberg; James L Rankin; Robert H Choplin Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.333
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: 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: Changsheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Song Luo; Hongyuan Shi; Lin Li; Ling Zheng; Long Jiang Zhang; Guangming Lu Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.173
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: Laura Filograna; Nicola Magarelli; Antonio Leone; Roman Guggenberger; Sebastian Winklhofer; Michael John Thali; Lorenzo Bonomo Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Giuseppe Cicero; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Simon S Martin; Ahmed E Othman; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Thomas D Ruder; Yannick Thali; Stephan A Bolliger; Sandra Somaini-Mathier; Michael J Thali; Gary M Hatch; Sebastian T Schindera Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 2.007
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