OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of three novel iterative metal artefact (iMAR) algorithms on image quality and artefact degree in chest CT of patients with a variety of thoracic metallic implants. METHODS: 27 postsurgical patients with thoracic implants who underwent clinical chest CT between March and May 2015 in clinical routine were retrospectively included. Images were retrospectively reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with three iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1 = Cardiac algorithm, iMAR-Algo2 = Pacemaker algorithm and iMAR-Algo3 = ThoracicCoils algorithm). The subjective and objective image quality was assessed. RESULTS: Averaged over all artefacts, artefact degree was significantly lower for the iMAR-Algo1 (58.9 ± 48.5 HU), iMAR-Algo2 (52.7 ± 46.8 HU) and the iMAR-Algo3 (51.9 ± 46.1 HU) compared with WFBP (91.6 ± 81.6 HU, p < 0.01 for all). All iMAR reconstructed images showed significantly lower artefacts (p < 0.01) compared with the WFPB while there was no significant difference between the iMAR algorithms, respectively. iMAR-Algo2 and iMAR-Algo3 reconstructions decreased mild and moderate artefacts compared with WFBP and iMAR-Algo1 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: All three iMAR algorithms led to a significant reduction of metal artefacts and increase in overall image quality compared with WFBP in chest CT of patients with metallic implants in subjective and objective analysis. The iMARAlgo2 and iMARAlgo3 were best for mild artefacts. IMARAlgo1 was superior for severe artefacts. Advances in knowledge: Iterative MAR led to significant artefact reduction and increase image-quality compared with WFBP in CT after implementation of thoracic devices. Adjusting iMAR-algorithms to patients' metallic implants can help to improve image quality in CT.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of three novel iterative metal artefact (iMAR) algorithms on image quality and artefact degree in chest CT of patients with a variety of thoracic metallic implants. METHODS: 27 postsurgical patients with thoracic implants who underwent clinical chest CT between March and May 2015 in clinical routine were retrospectively included. Images were retrospectively reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with three iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1 = Cardiac algorithm, iMAR-Algo2 = Pacemaker algorithm and iMAR-Algo3 = ThoracicCoils algorithm). The subjective and objective image quality was assessed. RESULTS: Averaged over all artefacts, artefact degree was significantly lower for the iMAR-Algo1 (58.9 ± 48.5 HU), iMAR-Algo2 (52.7 ± 46.8 HU) and the iMAR-Algo3 (51.9 ± 46.1 HU) compared with WFBP (91.6 ± 81.6 HU, p < 0.01 for all). All iMAR reconstructed images showed significantly lower artefacts (p < 0.01) compared with the WFPB while there was no significant difference between the iMAR algorithms, respectively. iMAR-Algo2 and iMAR-Algo3 reconstructions decreased mild and moderate artefacts compared with WFBP and iMAR-Algo1 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: All three iMAR algorithms led to a significant reduction of metal artefacts and increase in overall image quality compared with WFBP in chest CT of patients with metallic implants in subjective and objective analysis. The iMARAlgo2 and iMARAlgo3 were best for mild artefacts. IMARAlgo1 was superior for severe artefacts. Advances in knowledge: Iterative MAR led to significant artefact reduction and increase image-quality compared with WFBP in CT after implementation of thoracic devices. Adjusting iMAR-algorithms to patients' metallic implants can help to improve image quality in CT.
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Sebastian Winklhofer; Nicole Schwendener; Hatem Alkadhi; Michael J Thali; Thomas D Ruder Journal: Forensic Sci Med Pathol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Naveen Subhas; Andrew N Primak; Nancy A Obuchowski; Amit Gupta; Joshua M Polster; Andreas Krauss; Joseph P Iannotti Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Jessie Y Huang; James R Kerns; Jessica L Nute; Xinming Liu; Peter A Balter; Francesco C Stingo; David S Followill; Dragan Mirkovic; Rebecca M Howell; Stephen F Kry Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Felix G Meinel; Bernhard Bischoff; Qiaowei Zhang; Fabian Bamberg; Maximilian F Reiser; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 6.016
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: Jesse Habets; Petr Symersky; Tim Leiner; Bas A J M de Mol; Willem P Th M Mali; Ricardo P J Budde Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ole Martin; Joel Aissa; Johannes Boos; Katrin Wingendorf; David Latz; Christian Buchbender; Susanne Gaspers; Christina Antke; Martin Sedlmair; Gerald Antoch; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Janna Morawitz; Ole Martin; Johannes Boos; Lino M Sawicki; Katrin Wingendorf; Martin Sedlmair; Eduards Mamlins; Christina Antke; Gerald Antoch; Benedikt M Schaarschmidt Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-02-01
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