Sébastien Molière1, Jean-Philippe Dillenseger1,2, Matthieu Ehlinger2,3, Stéphane Kremer1,2, Guillaume Bierry4,5. 1. Imaging Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Moliere, 67098, Strasbourg, France. 2. ICube UMR 7357, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 3. Orthopaedic Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 4. Imaging Department, University Hospital of Strasbourg, 1 Avenue Moliere, 67098, Strasbourg, France. guillaume.bierry@chru-strasbourg.fr. 5. ICube UMR 7357, University of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. guillaume.bierry@chru-strasbourg.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate different fat-suppressed fluid-sensitive sequences in association with different metal artifacts reduction techniques (MARS) to determine which combination allows better fat suppression around metallic hip implants. METHODS: An experimental study using an MRI fat-water phantom quantitatively evaluated contrast shift induced by metallic hip implant for different fat-suppression techniques and MARS. Then a clinical study with patients addressed to MRI unit for painful hip prosthesis compared these techniques in terms of fat suppression quality and diagnosis confidence. RESULTS: Among sequences without MARS, both T2 Dixon and short tau inversion recuperation (STIR) had significantly lower contrast shift (p < 0.05), Dixon offering the best fat suppression. Adding MARS (view-angle tilting or slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC)) to STIR gave better results than Dixon alone, and also better than SPAIR and fat saturation with MARS (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between STIR with view-angle tilting and STIR with SEMAC in terms of fat suppression quality. CONCLUSIONS: STIR sequence is the preferred fluid-sensitive MR sequence in patients with metal implant. In combination with MARS (view-angle tilting or SEMAC), STIR appears to be the best option for high-quality fat suppression.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate different fat-suppressed fluid-sensitive sequences in association with different metal artifacts reduction techniques (MARS) to determine which combination allows better fat suppression around metallic hip implants. METHODS: An experimental study using an MRI fat-water phantom quantitatively evaluated contrast shift induced by metallic hip implant for different fat-suppression techniques and MARS. Then a clinical study with patients addressed to MRI unit for painful hip prosthesis compared these techniques in terms of fat suppression quality and diagnosis confidence. RESULTS: Among sequences without MARS, both T2 Dixon and short tau inversion recuperation (STIR) had significantly lower contrast shift (p < 0.05), Dixon offering the best fat suppression. Adding MARS (view-angle tilting or slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC)) to STIR gave better results than Dixon alone, and also better than SPAIR and fat saturation with MARS (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between STIR with view-angle tilting and STIR with SEMAC in terms of fat suppression quality. CONCLUSIONS: STIR sequence is the preferred fluid-sensitive MR sequence in patients with metal implant. In combination with MARS (view-angle tilting or SEMAC), STIR appears to be the best option for high-quality fat suppression.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fat suppression; Hip; MRI; Metal artifact reduction sequences; Prosthesis
Authors: T W Briant-Evans; N Lyle; S Barbur; J Hauptfleisch; R Amess; A R Pearce; K S Conn; G J Stranks; J M Britton Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: Thorsten A Bley; Oliver Wieben; Christopher J François; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Soo-Jung Choi; Kevin M Koch; Brian A Hargreaves; Kathryn J Stevens; Garry E Gold Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Henrik C Bäcker; Isabelle Steurer-Dober; Martin Beck; Christoph A Agten; Jens Decking; Richard F Herzog; Jeffrey A Geller; Ujwal Bhure; Justus E Roos; Klaus Strobel Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Soultana Kourtidou; Marty R Jones; Ryan A Moore; Justin T Tretter; Nicholas J Ollberding; Eric J Crotty; Mantosh S Rattan; Robert J Fleck; Michael D Taylor Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 5.364