Nils Große Hokamp1, V Neuhaus2, N Abdullayev2, K Laukamp2, S Lennartz2, A Mpotsaris2, J Borggrefe2. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. nils.grosse-hokamp@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to assess the artifact reduction in patients with orthopedic hardware in the spine as provided by (1) metal-artifact-reduction algorithms (O-MAR) and (2) virtual monoenergetic images (MonoE) as provided by spectral detector CT (SDCT) compared to conventional iterative reconstruction (CI). METHODS: In all, 28 consecutive patients with orthopedic hardware in the spine who underwent SDCT-examinations were included. CI, O-MAR and MonoE (40-200 keV) images were reconstructed. Attenuation (HU) and noise (SD) were measured in order to calculate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of paravertebral muscle and spinal canal. Subjective image quality was assessed by two radiologists in terms of image quality and extent of artifact reduction. RESULTS: O-MAR and high-keV MonoE showed significant decrease of hypodense artifacts in terms of higher attenuation as compared to CI (CI vs O-MAR, 200 keV MonoE: -396.5HU vs. -115.2HU, -48.1HU; both p ≤ 0.001). Further, artifacts as depicted by noise were reduced in O-MAR and high-keV MonoE as compared to CI in (1) paravertebral muscle and (2) spinal canal-CI vs. O-MAR/200 keV: (1) 34.7 ± 19.0 HU vs. 26.4 ± 14.4 HU, p ≤ 0.05/27.4 ± 16.1, n.s.; (2) 103.4 ± 61.3 HU vs. 72.6 ± 62.6 HU/60.9 ± 40.1 HU, both p ≤ 0.001. Subjectively both O-MAR and high-keV images yielded an artifact reduction in up to 24/28 patients. CONCLUSION: Both, O-MAR and high-keV MonoE reconstructions as provided by SDCT lead to objective and subjective artifact reduction, thus the combination of O-MAR and MonoE seems promising for further reduction.
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to assess the artifact reduction in patients with orthopedic hardware in the spine as provided by (1) metal-artifact-reduction algorithms (O-MAR) and (2) virtual monoenergetic images (MonoE) as provided by spectral detector CT (SDCT) compared to conventional iterative reconstruction (CI). METHODS: In all, 28 consecutive patients with orthopedic hardware in the spine who underwent SDCT-examinations were included. CI, O-MAR and MonoE (40-200 keV) images were reconstructed. Attenuation (HU) and noise (SD) were measured in order to calculate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of paravertebral muscle and spinal canal. Subjective image quality was assessed by two radiologists in terms of image quality and extent of artifact reduction. RESULTS: O-MAR and high-keV MonoE showed significant decrease of hypodense artifacts in terms of higher attenuation as compared to CI (CI vs O-MAR, 200 keV MonoE: -396.5HU vs. -115.2HU, -48.1HU; both p ≤ 0.001). Further, artifacts as depicted by noise were reduced in O-MAR and high-keV MonoE as compared to CI in (1) paravertebral muscle and (2) spinal canal-CI vs. O-MAR/200 keV: (1) 34.7 ± 19.0 HU vs. 26.4 ± 14.4 HU, p ≤ 0.05/27.4 ± 16.1, n.s.; (2) 103.4 ± 61.3 HU vs. 72.6 ± 62.6 HU/60.9 ± 40.1 HU, both p ≤ 0.001. Subjectively both O-MAR and high-keV images yielded an artifact reduction in up to 24/28 patients. CONCLUSION: Both, O-MAR and high-keV MonoE reconstructions as provided by SDCT lead to objective and subjective artifact reduction, thus the combination of O-MAR and MonoE seems promising for further reduction.
Authors: Kenneth A Buckwalter; J Andrew Parr; Robert H Choplin; William N Capello Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: William P Shuman; Douglas E Green; Janet M Busey; Lee M Mitsumori; Eunice Choi; Kent M Koprowicz; Kalpana M Kanal Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Moritz H Albrecht; Jesko Trommer; Julian L Wichmann; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Simon S Martin; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Dierks; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Moritz H Albrecht; Jan-Erik Scholtz; Kristina Hüsers; Martin Beeres; Andreas M Bucher; Moritz Kaup; Simon S Martin; Sebastian Fischer; Boris Bodelle; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas Lehnert; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Tommaso D'Angelo; Giuseppe Cicero; Silvio Mazziotti; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Simon S Martin; Ahmed E Othman; Thomas J Vogl; Julian L Wichmann Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Nils Große Hokamp; Brendan Eck; Florian Siedek; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Jasmin A Holz; David Maintz; Stefan Haneder Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-05
Authors: Hildegard M Wichtmann; Kai R Laukamp; Sebastian Manneck; Konrad Appelt; Bram Stieltjes; Daniel T Boll; Matthias R Benz; Markus M Obmann Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-09-30
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