Arsany Hakim1, Johannes Slotboom1, Olivier Lieger2, Fabian Schlittler2, Roland Giger3, Chantal Michel4, Roland Wiest1, Franca Wagner1. 1. 1 Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. 2 Department of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 3. 3 Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. 4 University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Metal artefacts present challenges to both radiologists and clinicians during post-operative imaging. Such artefacts reduce the diagnostic effectiveness of CT scans and mask findings that could be vital for patient management. Thus, a powerful artefact reduction tool is necessary when imaging patients with metal implants. Our aim was to test the recently introduced iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) algorithm in patients with maxillofacial implants. METHODS: Images from 17 patients with diverse maxillofacial metal implants who had undergone CT scans were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed before and after metal artefact reduction with iMAR. RESULTS: After iMAR application, images exhibited decreased artefacts and improved image quality, leading to detection of lesions that were previously masked by artefacts. The application of iMAR did not affect image quality in regions distant from the metal implants. CONCLUSIONS: The application of iMAR to CT examinations of patients with maxillofacial metal implants leads to artefact reduction, improvement of image quality and increased diagnostic utility. Routine implementation of iMAR during imaging of patients with metal hardware implants could add diagnostic value to their CT examinations.
OBJECTIVES:Metal artefacts present challenges to both radiologists and clinicians during post-operative imaging. Such artefacts reduce the diagnostic effectiveness of CT scans and mask findings that could be vital for patient management. Thus, a powerful artefact reduction tool is necessary when imaging patients with metal implants. Our aim was to test the recently introduced iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) algorithm in patients with maxillofacial implants. METHODS: Images from 17 patients with diverse maxillofacial metal implants who had undergone CT scans were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed before and after metal artefact reduction with iMAR. RESULTS: After iMAR application, images exhibited decreased artefacts and improved image quality, leading to detection of lesions that were previously masked by artefacts. The application of iMAR did not affect image quality in regions distant from the metal implants. CONCLUSIONS: The application of iMAR to CT examinations of patients with maxillofacial metal implants leads to artefact reduction, improvement of image quality and increased diagnostic utility. Routine implementation of iMAR during imaging of patients with metal hardware implants could add diagnostic value to their CT examinations.
Authors: S Winklhofer; E Benninger; C Spross; F Morsbach; S Rahm; S Ross; B Jost; M J Thali; P Stolzmann; H Alkadhi; R Guggenberger Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Naveen Subhas; Joshua M Polster; Nancy A Obuchowski; Andrew N Primak; Frank F Dong; Brian R Herts; Joseph P Iannotti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marian Axente; Ajay Paidi; Rie Von Eyben; Chuan Zeng; Ali Bani-Hashemi; Andreas Krauss; Dimitre Hristov Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: A L Kotsenas; G J Michalak; D R DeLone; F E Diehn; K Grant; A F Halaweish; A Krauss; R Raupach; B Schmidt; C H McCollough; J G Fletcher Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 3.825
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: Y Kubo; K Ito; M Sone; H Nagasawa; Y Onishi; N Umakoshi; T Hasegawa; T Akimoto; M Kusumoto Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825