S Winklhofer1, E Benninger2, C Spross2, F Morsbach3, S Rahm2, S Ross4, B Jost2, M J Thali4, P Stolzmann5, H Alkadhi3, R Guggenberger3. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Forensic Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: sebastian.winklhofer@usz.ch. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Kantonsspital St Gallen, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Forensic Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland; Department of Forensic Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and an iterative frequency split-normalized metal artefact reduction (IFS-MAR) algorithm compared to filtered back projections (FBP) from single-energy CT (SECT) for artefact reduction in internally fixated humeral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six internally fixated cadaveric humeri were examined using SECT and DECT. Data were reconstructed using FBP, IFS-MAR, and mono-energetic DECT extrapolations. Image analysis included radiodensity values and qualitative evaluation of artefacts, image quality, and level of confidence for localizing screw tips. RESULTS: Radiodensity values of streak artefacts were significantly different (p < 0.05) between FBP (-104 ± 222) and IFS-MAR (73 ± 122), and between FBP and DECT (32 ± 151), without differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). Compared to FBP, qualitative artefacts were significantly reduced using IFS-MAR (p < 0.001) and DECT (p < 0.05), without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.219). Image quality significantly (p = 0.016) improved for IFS-MAR and DECT compared to FBP, without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). The level of confidence for screw tip localization was assessed as best for DECT in all cases. CONCLUSION: Both IFS-MAR in SECT and mono-energetic DECT produce improved image quality and a reduction of metal artefacts. Screw tip positions can be most confidently assessed using DECT.
AIM: To assess the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and an iterative frequency split-normalized metal artefact reduction (IFS-MAR) algorithm compared to filtered back projections (FBP) from single-energy CT (SECT) for artefact reduction in internally fixated humeral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six internally fixated cadaveric humeri were examined using SECT and DECT. Data were reconstructed using FBP, IFS-MAR, and mono-energetic DECT extrapolations. Image analysis included radiodensity values and qualitative evaluation of artefacts, image quality, and level of confidence for localizing screw tips. RESULTS: Radiodensity values of streak artefacts were significantly different (p < 0.05) between FBP (-104 ± 222) and IFS-MAR (73 ± 122), and between FBP and DECT (32 ± 151), without differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). Compared to FBP, qualitative artefacts were significantly reduced using IFS-MAR (p < 0.001) and DECT (p < 0.05), without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.219). Image quality significantly (p = 0.016) improved for IFS-MAR and DECT compared to FBP, without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). The level of confidence for screw tip localization was assessed as best for DECT in all cases. CONCLUSION: Both IFS-MAR in SECT and mono-energetic DECT produce improved image quality and a reduction of metal artefacts. Screw tip positions can be most confidently assessed using DECT.
Authors: Sebastian Winklhofer; Jack W Lambert; Zhen Jane Wang; Yuxin Sun; Robert G Gould; Ronald J Zagoria; Benjamin M Yeh Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-08
Authors: Ole Martin; Joel Aissa; Johannes Boos; Katrin Wingendorf; David Latz; Christian Buchbender; Susanne Gaspers; Christina Antke; Martin Sedlmair; Gerald Antoch; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sebastian Eggert; Rahel A Kubik-Huch; Markus Klarhöfer; Alexander Peters; Stephan A Bolliger; Michael J Thali; Suzanne Anderson; Johannes M Froehlich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-02-25 Impact factor: 5.315