J Aissa1, C Thomas2, L M Sawicki2, J Caspers2, P Kröpil2, G Antoch2, J Boos2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Joel.Aissa@med.uni-duesseldorf.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, Medical Faculty, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the value of dedicated computed tomography (CT) iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) algorithms in patients after spinal instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-surgical spinal CT images of 24 patients performed between March 2015 and July 2016 were retrospectively included. Images were reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with two dedicated iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1, adjusted to spinal instrumentations and iMAR-Algo2, adjusted to large metallic hip implants) using a medium smooth kernel (B30f) and a sharp kernel (B70f). Frequencies of density changes were quantified to assess objective image quality. Image quality was rated subjectively by evaluating the visibility of critical anatomical structures including the central canal, the spinal cord, neural foramina, and vertebral bone. RESULTS: Both iMAR algorithms significantly reduced artefacts from metal compared with WFBP (p<0.0001). Results of subjective image analysis showed that both iMAR algorithms led to an improvement in visualisation of soft-tissue structures (median iMAR-Algo1=3; interquartile range [IQR]:1.5-3; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR: 3.5-4) and bone structures (iMAR-Algo1=3; IQR:3-4; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR:4-5) compared to WFBP (soft tissue: median 2; IQR: 0.5-2 and bone structures: median 2; IQR: 1-3; p<0.0001). Compared with iMAR-Algo1, objective artefact reduction and subjective visualisation of soft-tissue and bone structures were improved with iMAR-Algo2 (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both iMAR algorithms reduced artefacts compared with WFBP, however, the iMAR algorithm with dedicated settings for large metallic implants was superior to the algorithm specifically adjusted to spinal implants.
AIM: To investigate the value of dedicated computed tomography (CT) iterative metalartefact reduction (iMAR) algorithms in patients after spinal instrumentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-surgical spinal CT images of 24 patients performed between March 2015 and July 2016 were retrospectively included. Images were reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with two dedicated iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1, adjusted to spinal instrumentations and iMAR-Algo2, adjusted to large metallic hip implants) using a medium smooth kernel (B30f) and a sharp kernel (B70f). Frequencies of density changes were quantified to assess objective image quality. Image quality was rated subjectively by evaluating the visibility of critical anatomical structures including the central canal, the spinal cord, neural foramina, and vertebral bone. RESULTS: Both iMAR algorithms significantly reduced artefacts from metal compared with WFBP (p<0.0001). Results of subjective image analysis showed that both iMAR algorithms led to an improvement in visualisation of soft-tissue structures (median iMAR-Algo1=3; interquartile range [IQR]:1.5-3; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR: 3.5-4) and bone structures (iMAR-Algo1=3; IQR:3-4; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR:4-5) compared to WFBP (soft tissue: median 2; IQR: 0.5-2 and bone structures: median 2; IQR: 1-3; p<0.0001). Compared with iMAR-Algo1, objective artefact reduction and subjective visualisation of soft-tissue and bone structures were improved with iMAR-Algo2 (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both iMAR algorithms reduced artefacts compared with WFBP, however, the iMAR algorithm with dedicated settings for large metallic implants was superior to the algorithm specifically adjusted to spinal implants.
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: Kai Roman Laukamp; David Zopfs; Simon Lennartz; Lenhard Pennig; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe; Nils Große Hokamp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lenhard Pennig; David Zopfs; Roman Gertz; Johannes Bremm; Charlotte Zaeske; Nils Große Hokamp; Erkan Celik; Lukas Goertz; Marcel Langenbach; Thorsten Persigehl; Amit Gupta; Jan Borggrefe; Simon Lennartz; Kai Roman Laukamp Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 5.315