K M Andersson1, P Nowik2, J Persliden1, P Thunberg1,3, E Norrman1. 1. 1 Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. 2. 2 Department of Medical Physics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. 3 School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate commercial metal artefact reduction (MAR) techniques in X-ray CT imaging of hip prostheses. METHODS: Monoenergetic reconstructions of dual-energy CT (DECT) data and several different MAR algorithms, combined with single-energy CT or DECT, were evaluated by imaging a bilateral hip prosthesis phantom. The MAR images were compared with uncorrected images based on CT number accuracy and noise in different regions of interest. RESULTS: The three MAR algorithms studied implied a general noise reduction (up to 67%, 74% and 77%) and an improvement in CT number accuracy, both in regions close to the prostheses and between the two prostheses. The application of monoenergetic reconstruction, without any MAR algorithm, did not decrease the noise in the regions close to the prostheses to the same extent as did the MAR algorithms and even increased the noise in the region between the prostheses. CONCLUSION: The MAR algorithms evaluated generally improved CT number accuracy and substantially reduced the noise in the hip prostheses phantom images, both close to the prostheses and between the two prostheses. The study showed that the monoenergetic reconstructions evaluated did not sufficiently reduce the severe metal artefact caused by large orthopaedic implants. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study evaluates several commercially available MAR techniques in CT imaging of large orthopaedic implants.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate commercial metal artefact reduction (MAR) techniques in X-ray CT imaging of hip prostheses. METHODS: Monoenergetic reconstructions of dual-energy CT (DECT) data and several different MAR algorithms, combined with single-energy CT or DECT, were evaluated by imaging a bilateral hip prosthesis phantom. The MAR images were compared with uncorrected images based on CT number accuracy and noise in different regions of interest. RESULTS: The three MAR algorithms studied implied a general noise reduction (up to 67%, 74% and 77%) and an improvement in CT number accuracy, both in regions close to the prostheses and between the two prostheses. The application of monoenergetic reconstruction, without any MAR algorithm, did not decrease the noise in the regions close to the prostheses to the same extent as did the MAR algorithms and even increased the noise in the region between the prostheses. CONCLUSION: The MAR algorithms evaluated generally improved CT number accuracy and substantially reduced the noise in the hip prostheses phantom images, both close to the prostheses and between the two prostheses. The study showed that the monoenergetic reconstructions evaluated did not sufficiently reduce the severe metal artefact caused by large orthopaedic implants. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study evaluates several commercially available MAR techniques in CT imaging of large orthopaedic implants.
Authors: Seung Chol Han; Yong Eun Chung; Young Han Lee; Kwan Kyu Park; Myeong Jin Kim; Ki Whang Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Y Nagayama; S Tanoue; S Oda; D Sakabe; T Emoto; M Kidoh; H Uetani; A Sasao; T Nakaura; O Ikeda; K Yamada; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-12-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nils Große Hokamp; V Neuhaus; N Abdullayev; K Laukamp; S Lennartz; A Mpotsaris; J Borggrefe Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 2.199
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: Dominik Alexander Hering; Kai Kröger; Ralf W Bauer; Hans Theodor Eich; Uwe Haverkamp Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.039