Akinaga Sonoda1,2, Norihisa Nitta3, Noritoshi Ushio4, Yukihiro Nagatani5, Noriaki Okumura6, Hideji Otani7, Kiyoshi Murata8. 1. Department of Radiology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. akinaga@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. akinaga@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. r34nitta@yahoo.co.jp. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. ushio@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. yatsushi@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. noriaki@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp. 7. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. otani@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp. 8. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Setatsukinowa-cho, Otsu, Shiga, 520-2192, Japan. murata@belle.shiga-med.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the quality of the images acquired with single energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) on CT scans of three different human body areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved the study protocol. CT studies of 58 patients (hip prosthesis, n = 20; iliac artery aneurysm embolization, n = 20; dental prosthesis, n = 18) were retrospectively reconstructed using interactive reconstruction (IR) and IR plus SEMAR. Two radiologists independently evaluated the images for the reduction of metal artifacts at three sites, i.e., 0-1, 1-5, and 5-10 cm from their edges, and recorded their findings on a 100-mm-long line that corresponded to the Likert scale and ranged from 0 (invisible) to 100 mm (clearly visible). The standard deviation in Hounsfield units was used as the noise assessment tool. Statistical analysis was performed with the t test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The image quality of scans of hip prostheses and metal embolization coils was significantly improved when SEMAR was used (p < 0.05). On scans of dental prostheses, SEMAR did not contribute significantly, especially in the area 1 cm from the edge of the implant. CONCLUSION: Visual subjective evaluation showed that SEMAR improved the image quality.
PURPOSE: We compared the quality of the images acquired with single energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) on CT scans of three different human body areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved the study protocol. CT studies of 58 patients (hip prosthesis, n = 20; iliac artery aneurysm embolization, n = 20; dental prosthesis, n = 18) were retrospectively reconstructed using interactive reconstruction (IR) and IR plus SEMAR. Two radiologists independently evaluated the images for the reduction of metal artifacts at three sites, i.e., 0-1, 1-5, and 5-10 cm from their edges, and recorded their findings on a 100-mm-long line that corresponded to the Likert scale and ranged from 0 (invisible) to 100 mm (clearly visible). The standard deviation in Hounsfield units was used as the noise assessment tool. Statistical analysis was performed with the t test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The image quality of scans of hip prostheses and metal embolization coils was significantly improved when SEMAR was used (p < 0.05). On scans of dental prostheses, SEMAR did not contribute significantly, especially in the area 1 cm from the edge of the implant. CONCLUSION: Visual subjective evaluation showed that SEMAR improved the image quality.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artifact reduction; Metal implants; Noise
Authors: Olga R Brook; Sofia Gourtsoyianni; Alexander Brook; Anand Mahadevan; Carol Wilcox; Vassilios Raptopoulos Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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
Authors: Angeliki Neroladaki; Steve Philippe Martin; Ilias Bagetakos; Diomidis Botsikas; Marion Hamard; Xavier Montet; Sana Boudabbous Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Ruud H H Wellenberg; Jochen A C van Osch; Henk J Boelhouwers; Mireille A Edens; Geert J Streekstra; Harmen B Ettema; Martijn F Boomsma Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 2.199