Sebastian Winklhofer1, Ricarda Hinzpeter2, Daniel Stocker2, Gerasimos Baltsavias3, Lars Michels3, Jan-Karl Burkhardt4, Luca Regli4, Antonios Valavanis3, Hatem Alkadhi2. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. sebastian.winklhofer@usz.ch. 2. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare and to combine iterative metal artifact reduction (MAR) and virtual monoenergetic extrapolations (VMEs) from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for reducing metal artifacts from intracranial clips and coils. METHODS: Fourteen clips and six coils were scanned in a phantom model with DECT at 100 and 150SnkVp. Four datasets were reconstructed: non-corrected images (filtered-back projection), iterative MAR, VME from DECT at 120 keV, and combined iterative MAR + VME images. Artifact severity scores and visibility of simulated, contrast-filled, adjacent vessels were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by two independent, blinded readers. RESULTS: Iterative MAR, VME, and combined iterative MAR + VME resulted in a significant reduction of qualitative (p < 0.001) and quantitative clip artifacts (p < 0.005) and improved the visibility of adjacent vessels (p < 0.05) compared to non-corrected images, with lowest artifact scores found in combined iterative MAR + VME images. Titanium clips demonstrated less artifacts than Phynox clips (p < 0.05), and artifact scores increased with clip size. Coil artifacts increased with coil size but were reducible when applying iterative MAR + VME compared to non-corrected images. However, no technique improved the severe artifacts from large, densely packed coils. CONCLUSIONS: Combining iterative MAR with VME allows for an improved metal artifact reduction from clips and smaller, loosely packed coils. Limited value was found for large and densely packed coils.
PURPOSE: To compare and to combine iterative metal artifact reduction (MAR) and virtual monoenergetic extrapolations (VMEs) from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for reducing metal artifacts from intracranial clips and coils. METHODS: Fourteen clips and six coils were scanned in a phantom model with DECT at 100 and 150SnkVp. Four datasets were reconstructed: non-corrected images (filtered-back projection), iterative MAR, VME from DECT at 120 keV, and combined iterative MAR + VME images. Artifact severity scores and visibility of simulated, contrast-filled, adjacent vessels were assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by two independent, blinded readers. RESULTS: Iterative MAR, VME, and combined iterative MAR + VME resulted in a significant reduction of qualitative (p < 0.001) and quantitative clip artifacts (p < 0.005) and improved the visibility of adjacent vessels (p < 0.05) compared to non-corrected images, with lowest artifact scores found in combined iterative MAR + VME images. Titanium clips demonstrated less artifacts than Phynox clips (p < 0.05), and artifact scores increased with clip size. Coil artifacts increased with coil size but were reducible when applying iterative MAR + VME compared to non-corrected images. However, no technique improved the severe artifacts from large, densely packed coils. CONCLUSIONS: Combining iterative MAR with VME allows for an improved metal artifact reduction from clips and smaller, loosely packed coils. Limited value was found for large and densely packed coils.
Authors: Marios-Nikos Psychogios; Bernhard Scholz; Christopher Rohkohl; Yiannis Kyriakou; Alexander Mohr; Peter Schramm; Dorothee Wachter; Katrin Wasser; Michael Knauth Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 2.804
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: 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: 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: I Pechlivanis; A Harders; J Tuttenberg; M Barth; G Schulte-Altedorneburg; K Schmieder Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Su Young Yun; Young Jin Heo; Hae Woong Jeong; Jin Wook Baek; Hye Jung Choo; Gi Won Shin; Sung Tae Kim; Young Gyun Jeong; Ji Young Lee; Hyun Seok Jung Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: L Letourneau-Guillon; B Farzin; T E Darsaut; M Kotowski; F Guilbert; M Chagnon; A Diouf; D Roy; A Weill; M Lemus; C Bard; M Belair; D Landry; L Nico; A Tellier; R Jabre; C Kauffmann; J Raymond Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Amit Gupta; Verena Carola Obmann; Michelle Jordan; Simon Lennartz; Markus Michael Obmann; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Lenhard Pennig; Gina Fürtjes; Nikhil Ramaiya; Robert Gilkeson; Kai Roman Laukamp Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-01