Masafumi Kidoh1, Daisuke Utsunomiya2, Osamu Ikeda2, Yoshitaka Tamura2, Seitaro Oda2, Yoshinori Funama3, Hideaki Yuki2, Takeshi Nakaura2, Takayuki Kawano4, Toshinori Hirai2, Yasuyuki Yamashita2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1, Honjo, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. masafkidoh@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1, Honjo, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 3. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1, Honjo, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Life Sciences Research, Kumamoto University Graduate School, 1-1-1, Honjo, Kumamoto, 860-8556, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of a single-energy metal artefact reduction (SEMAR) algorithm for metallic coil artefact reduction in body imaging. METHODS: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) was performed in 30 patients with metallic coils (10 men, 20 women; mean age, 67.9 ± 11 years). Non-SEMAR images were reconstructed with iterative reconstruction alone, and SEMAR images were reconstructed with the iterative reconstruction plus SEMAR algorithms. We compared image noise around metallic coils and the maximum diameters of artefacts from coils between the non-SEMAR and SEMAR images. Two radiologists visually evaluated the metallic coil artefacts utilizing a four-point scale: 1 = extensive; 2 = strong; 3 = mild; 4 = minimal artefacts. RESULTS: The image noise and maximum diameters of the artefacts of the SEMAR images were significantly lower than those of the non-SEMAR images (65.1 ± 33.0 HU vs. 29.7 ± 10.3 HU; 163.9 ± 54.8 mm vs. 10.3 ± 19.0 mm, respectively; P < 0.001). Better visual scores were obtained with the SEMAR technique (3.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.0 ± 0.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SEMAR algorithm significantly reduced artefacts caused by metallic coils compared with the non-SEMAR algorithm. This technique can potentially increase CT performance for the evaluation of post-coil embolization complications. KEY POINTS: • The new algorithm involves a raw data- and image-based reconstruction technique. • The new algorithm mitigates artefacts from metallic coils on body CT images. • The new algorithm significantly reduced artefacts caused by metallic coils. • The metal artefact reduction algorithm improves CT image quality after coil embolization.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of a single-energy metal artefact reduction (SEMAR) algorithm for metallic coil artefact reduction in body imaging. METHODS: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) was performed in 30 patients with metallic coils (10 men, 20 women; mean age, 67.9 ± 11 years). Non-SEMAR images were reconstructed with iterative reconstruction alone, and SEMAR images were reconstructed with the iterative reconstruction plus SEMAR algorithms. We compared image noise around metallic coils and the maximum diameters of artefacts from coils between the non-SEMAR and SEMAR images. Two radiologists visually evaluated the metallic coil artefacts utilizing a four-point scale: 1 = extensive; 2 = strong; 3 = mild; 4 = minimal artefacts. RESULTS: The image noise and maximum diameters of the artefacts of the SEMAR images were significantly lower than those of the non-SEMAR images (65.1 ± 33.0 HU vs. 29.7 ± 10.3 HU; 163.9 ± 54.8 mm vs. 10.3 ± 19.0 mm, respectively; P < 0.001). Better visual scores were obtained with the SEMAR technique (3.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.0 ± 0.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SEMAR algorithm significantly reduced artefacts caused by metallic coils compared with the non-SEMAR algorithm. This technique can potentially increase CT performance for the evaluation of post-coil embolization complications. KEY POINTS: • The new algorithm involves a raw data- and image-based reconstruction technique. • The new algorithm mitigates artefacts from metallic coils on body CT images. • The new algorithm significantly reduced artefacts caused by metallic coils. • The metal artefact reduction algorithm improves CT image quality after coil embolization.
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: Young Min Han; Soo-Kyeong Song; Hong Pil Hwang; Kyung Pyo Kang; Won Kim; Sung Kwang Park; Sik Lee Journal: Vasc Med Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 3.239
Authors: Fabian Morsbach; Moritz Wurnig; Daniel M Kunz; Andreas Krauss; Bernhard Schmidt; Spyros S Kollias; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: S Gallas; A C Januel; A Pasco; J Drouineau; J Gabrillargues; A Gaston; C Cognard; D Herbreteau Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 3.825
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: M A A D Ragusi; R W van der Meer; R M S Joemai; J van Schaik; C S P van Rijswijk Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 2.740