Literature DB >> 24053373

Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging artifact with cobalt-chromium versus titanium spinal instrumentation: presented at the 2013 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Clinical article.

Faiz U Ahmad1, Charif Sidani, Roberto Fourzali, Michael Y Wang.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Cobalt-chromium alloy (CoCr) rods haves some preferred biomechanical properties over titanium rods for spinal fixation. The use of CoCr rods in spinal fusion is relatively new, and there is no study in the existing world literature assessing the artifact caused by these rods in patients undergoing postoperative MRI. The purpose of this study is to compare the amount of imaging artifact caused by these implants and to assess its impact on the visualization of neighboring neural structures.
METHODS: This study investigated MR images in patients who underwent implantation of thoracolumbar instrumentation using 5.5-mm-diameter CoCr rods between November 2009 and March 2011 and images obtained in a comparison group of patients who had 5.5-mm titanium rods implanted during the same time period. Axial measurements of the artifact created by the rods between the screw heads were compared between the groups. Two blinded board-certified radiologists performed the measurements independently. They scored the visualization of the spinal canal using a subjective scoring system of 1-3, with 1 representing very good visualization and 2 and 3 representing reduced (good or suboptimal, respectively) visualization as a result of rod-related artifact. All measurements and scores were independently provided for T1-weighted and T2-weighted fast spin echo sequences (1.5-T magnet, 5-mm slice thickness).
RESULTS: A total of 40 levels from the CoCr group (6 patients) and 30 levels from the titanium group (9 patients) were included in the analysis. Visualization of the canal at all levels was rated a score of 1 (very good) by both evaluators for both the CoCr and titanium groups. The average artifact on T1-weighted images measured 11.8 ± 1.8 mm for the CoCr group and 8.5 ± 1.2 mm for the titanium group (p < 0.01). The corresponding measurements on T2-weighted images were 11.0 ± 2.3 mm and 8.3 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.01), respectively. In a mixed regression model, the mean artifact measurement for the CoCr group was, on average, 3.5 mm larger than for the control group. There was no significant difference between the measurements of the 2 evaluators (p = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: The artifact caused by CoCr rods is approximately 3.5 mm larger than that caused by titanium rods on axial T1- and T2-weighted MRI. However, artifact from either CoCr or titanium was not found to interfere with the evaluation of the spinal canal and surrounding neural elements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24053373     DOI: 10.3171/2013.7.SPINE1359

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  12 in total

1.  Titanium vs cobalt chromium: what is the best rod material to enhance adolescent idiopathic scoliosis correction with sublaminar bands?

Authors:  Audrey Angelliaume; E Ferrero; K Mazda; M Le Hanneur; F Accabled; J Sales de Gauzy; B Ilharreborde
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-05       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Quantifying the effect of posterior spinal instrumentation on the MRI signal of adjacent intervertebral discs.

Authors:  Mary H Foltz; Robert M O'Leary; Diana Reader; Nicholas L Rudolph; Krista A Schlitter; Jutta Ellermann; Casey P Johnson; David W Polly; Arin M Ellingson
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-05-24

3.  In vitro assessment of knee MRI in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength.

Authors:  Hans Liebl; Ursula Heilmeier; Sonia Lee; Lorenzo Nardo; Janina Patsch; Christopher Schuppert; Misung Han; Ina-Christine Rondak; Suchandrima Banerjee; Kevin Koch; Thomas M Link; Roland Krug
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  SEMAC-VAT MR Imaging Unravels Peri-instrumentation Lesions in Patients With Attendant Symptoms After Spinal Surgery.

Authors:  Shun Qi; Zhi-Gang Wu; Yun-Feng Mu; Lang-Lang Gao; Jian Yang; Pan-Li Zuo; Mathias Nittka; Ying Liu; Hai-Qiang Wang; Hong Yin
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.889

5.  Novel Bio-functional Magnesium Coating on Porous Ti6Al4V Orthopaedic Implants: In vitro and In vivo Study.

Authors:  Xiaokang Li; Peng Gao; Peng Wan; Yifeng Pei; Lei Shi; Bo Fan; Chao Shen; Xin Xiao; Ke Yang; Zheng Guo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Utilization of CT scanning associated with complex spine surgery.

Authors:  Vikas V Patel; Gunnar B J Andersson; Steven R Garfin; Donald L Resnick; Jon E Block
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Quantification of metal-induced susceptibility artifacts associated with ultrahigh-field magnetic resonance imaging of spinal implants.

Authors:  Yusuke Chiba; Hideki Murakami; Makoto Sasaki; Hirooki Endo; Daisuke Yamabe; Daichi Kinno; Minoru Doita
Journal:  JOR Spine       Date:  2019-08-16

8.  Evaluation of the osteogenesis and osseointegration of titanium alloys coated with graphene: an in vivo study.

Authors:  Kewen Li; Chunhui Wang; Jinhong Yan; Qi Zhang; Baoping Dang; Zhuo Wang; Yun Yao; Kaifeng Lin; Zhongshang Guo; Long Bi; Yisheng Han
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Choice of Rods in Surgical Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: What Are the Clinical Implications of Biomechanical Properties? - A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Søren Ohrt-Nissen; Benny Dahl; Martin Gehrchen
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2018-06-19

10.  Hemilaterally masked arterial spin labeling by intentional magnetic field changes in the labeling area due to placement of material with high susceptibility.

Authors:  Hiroaki Hagiwara; Yoshito Nakajima; Tadashi Ikegami; Yoshinori Kinno; Megumi Kumada
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.