Literature DB >> 26273548

Assessment of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Artifact Following Cervical Total Disc Arthroplasty.

Amir H Fayyazi1, Jennifer Taormina2, David Svach3, Jeff Stein4, Nathaniel R Ordway2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical disc arthroplasty has become a technique for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease. Clinically, the need to accurately assess the neural elements at the operative and adjacent levels is critical postoperatively. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively measure the amount of MRI artifact produced by various cervical total disc replacements.
METHODS: T1 and T2-weighted turbo spin-echo MRI sequences were collected on the cervical spine (C2-T1) of a 68 year-old unembalmed male cadaver. A discectomy was performed at C5-6, followed by successive implantation of six different total disc replacements. The scans were quantitatively evaluated by three of the authors. The volume of artifact was measured using image analysis software. Qualitative analysis of the adjacent and index neural elements was performed.
RESULTS: The artifact in the T2 weighted images was noted to be 58.6±7.3 cm3 for Prestige ST, 14.2±1.3 cm3 for ProDisc-C, 7.5±0.8 cm3 for Discover, 8.0±0.3 cm3 for Prestige LP, 6.6±0.7 cm3 for Bryan, and 7.3±0.6 cm3 for ProDisc-C titanium prototype. Acceptable intraobserver and excellent interobsever correlation was demonstrated using Pearson Correlation and Concordance Correlation Coefficient analysis. The adjacent and implanted level neural elements (spinal cord and neuroforamina) were easily visualized on the T2 weighted images after the implantation of titanium devices (ProDisc-C titanium prototype, Discover, Prestige LP and Bryan). After implantation of a cobalt chrome implant (ProDisc-C), the adjacent level neural elements were easily visualized but the implanted level could not be fully visualized due to distortion of the images. The quality of the distortion was least favorable after the implantation of the stainless steel implant (Prestige ST), where neither the adjacent nor the index level could be fully visualized.
CONCLUSION: The volume of the artifact seen following cervical total disc arthroplasty is highly dependent upon the material property of the implant. Quantitative analysis described in this study demonstrated sufficiently low intraobserver and interobserver variability to be considered a reliable technique.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artifact; Cervical Spine; MRI; Qualitative Measurement; Quantitative Measurement; Total disc arthroplasty

Year:  2015        PMID: 26273548      PMCID: PMC4528609          DOI: 10.14444/2030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  19 in total

1.  Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants.

Authors:  A M Viano; S A Gronemeyer; M Haliloglu; F A Hoffer
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 2.546

2.  Biomechanical evaluation of total disc replacement arthroplasty: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

Authors:  Bryan W Cunningham; Jeffrey D Gordon; Anton E Dmitriev; Nianbin Hu; Paul C McAfee
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2003-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Cervical total disc replacement, part I: rationale, biomechanics, and implant types.

Authors:  Mahidhar M Durbhakula; Gary Ghiselli
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.472

4.  A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation.

Authors:  J C Wang; W D Yu; H S Sandhu; V Tam; R B Delamarter
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies.

Authors:  J S Suh; E K Jeong; K H Shin; J H Cho; J B Na; D H Kim; C D Han
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Image technique optimization in MR imaging of a titanium alloy joint prosthesis.

Authors:  J Törmänen; O Tervonen; A Koivula; J Junila; I Suramo
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 7.  Cervical disc replacement.

Authors:  Frank M Phillips; Steven R Garfin
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Cervical arthroplasty: material properties.

Authors:  Harvey E Smith; David W Wimberley; Alexander R Vaccaro
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.047

9.  Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Praveen V Mummaneni; J Kenneth Burkus; Regis W Haid; Vincent C Traynelis; Thomas A Zdeblick
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-03

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, Prodisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical arthroplasty devices.

Authors:  Lali H S Sekhon; Neil Duggal; James J Lynch; Regis W Haid; John G Heller; K Daniel Riew; Kevin Seex; Paul A Anderson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.