OBJECTIVES: The aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the performance of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) reconstructions to reduce metal artefacts in bodies with orthopedic devices in comparison with standard single-energy CT (SECT) examinations in forensic imaging. Forensic and clinical impacts of this study are also discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty metallic implants in 20 consecutive cadavers with metallic implants underwent both SECT and DECT with a clinically suitable scanning protocol. Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105, 120, and 130 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimized image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Image quality of the seven monoenergetic images and of the corresponding SECT image was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by visual rating and measurements of attenuation changes induced by streak artefact. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative analyses showed statistically significant differences between monoenergetic DECT extrapolated images and SECT, with improvements in diagnostic assessment in monoenergetic DECT at higher monoenergies. The mean value of OPTkeV was 137.6 ± 4.9 with a range of 130 to 148 keV. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that monoenergetic DECT images extrapolated at high energy levels significantly reduce metallic artefacts from orthopedic implants and improve image quality compared to SECT examination in forensic imaging.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the performance of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) reconstructions to reduce metal artefacts in bodies with orthopedic devices in comparison with standard single-energy CT (SECT) examinations in forensic imaging. Forensic and clinical impacts of this study are also discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty metallic implants in 20 consecutive cadavers with metallic implants underwent both SECT and DECT with a clinically suitable scanning protocol. Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105, 120, and 130 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimized image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Image quality of the seven monoenergetic images and of the corresponding SECT image was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by visual rating and measurements of attenuation changes induced by streak artefact. RESULTS: Qualitative and quantitative analyses showed statistically significant differences between monoenergetic DECT extrapolated images and SECT, with improvements in diagnostic assessment in monoenergetic DECT at higher monoenergies. The mean value of OPTkeV was 137.6 ± 4.9 with a range of 130 to 148 keV. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that monoenergetic DECT images extrapolated at high energy levels significantly reduce metallic artefacts from orthopedic implants and improve image quality compared to SECT examination in forensic imaging.
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: Paul Stolzmann; Sebastian Winklhofer; Nicole Schwendener; Hatem Alkadhi; Michael J Thali; Thomas D Ruder Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 2.007
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: 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: 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: Laura Filograna; Nicola Magarelli; Antonio Leone; Chiara de Waure; Giovanna Elisa Calabrò; Tim Finkenstaedt; Michael John Thali; Lorenzo Bonomo Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Joel Aissa; Johannes Boos; Lino Morris Sawicki; Niklas Heinzler; Karl Krzymyk; Martin Sedlmair; Patric Kröpil; Gerald Antoch; Christoph Thomas Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Nils Große Hokamp; Robert Rau; Markus Le Blanc; Nuran Abdullayev; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hildegard M Wichtmann; Kai R Laukamp; Sebastian Manneck; Konrad Appelt; Bram Stieltjes; Daniel T Boll; Matthias R Benz; Markus M Obmann Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-09-30
Authors: Ruud H H Wellenberg; Johanna C E Donders; Peter Kloen; Ludo F M Beenen; Roeland P Kleipool; Mario Maas; Geert J Streekstra Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Florian A Huber; Kai Sprengel; Lydia Müller; Laura C Graf; Georg Osterhoff; Roman Guggenberger Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Malte N Bongers; Christoph Schabel; Christoph Thomas; Rainer Raupach; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Konstantin Nikolaou; Fabian Bamberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.240