Literature DB >> 28152257

Imaging near orthopedic hardware.

Matthew F Koff1, Alissa J Burge1, Kevin M Koch2, Hollis G Potter1.   

Abstract

Over one million total joint replacement surgeries were performed in the US in 2013 alone, and this number is expected to more than double by 2030. Traditional imaging techniques for postoperative evaluation of implanted devices, such as radiography, computerized tomography, or ultrasound, utilize ionizing radiation, suffer from beam hardening artifact, or lack the inherent high contrast necessary to adequately evaluate soft tissues around the implants, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), due to its ability to generate multiplanar, high-contrast images without the use of ionizing radiation is ideal for evaluating periprosthetic soft tissues but has traditionally suffered from in-plane and through-plane data misregistration due to the magnetic susceptibility of implanted materials. A recent renaissance in the interest of imaging near arthroplasty and implanted orthopedic hardware has led to the development of new techniques that help to mitigate the effects of magnetic susceptibility. This article describes the challenges of performing imaging near implanted orthopedic hardware, how to generate clinically interpretable images when imaging near implanted devices, and how the images may be interpreted for clinical use. We will also describe current developments of utilizing MRI to evaluate implanted orthopedic hardware. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;46:24-39.
© 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MRI; arthroplasty; metal; susceptibility

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28152257      PMCID: PMC5464983          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25577

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  87 in total

1.  Quantification and minimization of magnetic susceptibility artifacts on GRE images.

Authors:  J D Port; M G Pomper
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Reactions of the articular capsule to wear products of artificial joint prostheses.

Authors:  H G Willert; M Semlitsch
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1977-03

3.  Reduction of blurring in view angle tilting MRI.

Authors:  Kim Butts; John M Pauly; Garry E Gold
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  A comparison of conventional spin-echo and turbo spin-echo imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware.

Authors:  S Eustace; H Jara; R Goldberg; H Fenlon; M Mason; E R Melhem; E K Yucel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Feasibility of fat-saturated T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) at 3T.

Authors:  Young Han Lee; Daekeon Lim; Eunju Kim; Sungjun Kim; Ho-Taek Song; Jin-Suck Suh
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-04-24       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Direct in vivo inflammatory cell-induced corrosion of CoCrMo alloy orthopedic implant surfaces.

Authors:  Jeremy L Gilbert; Shiril Sivan; Yangping Liu; Sevi B Kocagöz; Christina M Arnholt; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 4.396

7.  MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniques.

Authors:  Catherine L Hayter; Matthew F Koff; Parina Shah; Kevin M Koch; Theodore T Miller; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components.

Authors:  Daniel J Berry; W Scott Harmsen; Miguel E Cabanela; Bernard F Morrey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction in MRI.

Authors:  Wenmiao Lu; Kim Butts Pauly; Garry E Gold; John M Pauly; Brian A Hargreaves
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  The painful metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  A J Hart; S Sabah; J Henckel; A Lewis; J Cobb; B Sampson; A Mitchell; J A Skinner
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-06
View more
  8 in total

1.  What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Component Loosening in THA?

Authors:  Alissa J Burge; Gabrielle P Konin; Jennifer L Berkowitz; Bin Lin; Matthew F Koff; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  MRI of Hip Arthroplasties: Comparison of Isotropic Multiacquisition Variable-Resonance Image Combination Selective (MAVRIC SL) Acquisitions With a Conventional MAVRIC SL Acquisition.

Authors:  Kelly C Zochowski; Mauro A Miranda; Jacky Cheung; Erin C Argentieri; Bin Lin; S Sivaram Kaushik; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter; Matthew F Koff
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  New-Generation Low-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Hip Arthroplasty Implants Using Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction: First In Vitro Experience at 0.55 T and Comparison With 1.5 T.

Authors:  Iman Khodarahmi; Inge M Brinkmann; Dana J Lin; Mary Bruno; Patricia M Johnson; Florian Knoll; Mahesh B Keerthivasan; Hersh Chandarana; Jan Fritz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 10.065

4.  Advantages of Radiation Therapy Simulation with 0.35 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Stereotactic Ablation of Spinal Metastases.

Authors:  Benjamin Spieler; Stuart E Samuels; Ricardo Llorente; Raphael Yechieli; John Chetley Ford; Eric A Mellon
Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-11-26

Review 5.  Clinical magnetic resonance imaging of arthroplasty at 1.5 T.

Authors:  Matthew F Koff; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  Signal voids of active cardiac implants at 3.0 T CMR.

Authors:  Theresa Reiter; Ingo Weiss; Oliver M Weber; Wolfgang R Bauer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Development and evaluation of a numerical simulation approach to predict metal artifacts from passive implants in MRI.

Authors:  Tobias Spronk; Oliver Kraff; Jakob Kreutner; Gregor Schaefers; Harald H Quick
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2021-10-16       Impact factor: 2.533

Review 8.  Imaging in Hip Arthroplasty Management Part 2: Postoperative Diagnostic Imaging Strategy.

Authors:  Charles Lombard; Pierre Gillet; Edouard Germain; Fatma Boubaker; Alain Blum; Pedro Augusto Gondim Teixeira; Romain Gillet
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 4.964

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.