Nicola Magarelli1, Vincenzo De Santis2, Giammaria Marziali3, Amerigo Menghi2, Aaron Burrofato2, Luigi Pedone1, Dario Del Prete1, Roberto Iezzi1, Chiara de Waure4, Marianna D'andrea4, Antonio Leone1, Cesare Colosimo1. 1. Institute of Radiology, Catholic University School of Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 2. Institute of Clinical Orthopedic, Catholic University School of Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy. 3. Institute of Radiology, Catholic University School of Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy. giammaria.marziali@gmail.com. 4. Institute of Hygiene, Catholic University School of Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess image quality when using dual-energy CT (DECT) to reduce metal artifacts in subjects with knee and hip prostheses. METHODS: Twenty-two knee and 10 hip prostheses were examined in 31 patients using a DECT protocol (tube voltages 100 and 140 kVp). Monoenergetic reconstructions were extrapolated at 64, 69, 88, 105, 110, 120, 140, 170, and 190 kilo-electron volts (keV) and the optimal energy was manually selected. The B60-140 and Fast DE reconstructions were made by CT. The image quality and diagnostic value were subjectively and objectively determined. Double-blind qualitative assessment was performed by two radiologists using a Likert scale. For quantitative analysis, a circular region of interest (ROI) was placed by a third radiologist within the most evident streak artifacts on every image. Another ROI was placed in surrounding tissues without artifacts as a reference. RESULTS: The inter-reader agreement for the qualitative assessment was nearly 100%. The best overall image quality (37.8% rated "excellent") was the Fast DE Siemens reconstruction, followed by B60-140 and Opt KeV (20.5 and 10.2% rated excellent). On the other hand, DECT images at 64, 69 and 88 keV had the worse scores. The number of artifacts was significantly different between monoenergetic images. Nevertheless, because of the high number of pairwise comparisons, no differences were found in the post hoc analysis except for a trend toward statistical significance when comparing the 170 and 64 keV doses. CONCLUSIONS: DECT with specific post-processing may reduce metal artifacts and significantly enhance the image quality and diagnostic value when evaluating metallic implants.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess image quality when using dual-energy CT (DECT) to reduce metal artifacts in subjects with knee and hip prostheses. METHODS: Twenty-two knee and 10 hip prostheses were examined in 31 patients using a DECT protocol (tube voltages 100 and 140 kVp). Monoenergetic reconstructions were extrapolated at 64, 69, 88, 105, 110, 120, 140, 170, and 190 kilo-electron volts (keV) and the optimal energy was manually selected. The B60-140 and Fast DE reconstructions were made by CT. The image quality and diagnostic value were subjectively and objectively determined. Double-blind qualitative assessment was performed by two radiologists using a Likert scale. For quantitative analysis, a circular region of interest (ROI) was placed by a third radiologist within the most evident streak artifacts on every image. Another ROI was placed in surrounding tissues without artifacts as a reference. RESULTS: The inter-reader agreement for the qualitative assessment was nearly 100%. The best overall image quality (37.8% rated "excellent") was the Fast DE Siemens reconstruction, followed by B60-140 and Opt KeV (20.5 and 10.2% rated excellent). On the other hand, DECT images at 64, 69 and 88 keV had the worse scores. The number of artifacts was significantly different between monoenergetic images. Nevertheless, because of the high number of pairwise comparisons, no differences were found in the post hoc analysis except for a trend toward statistical significance when comparing the 170 and 64 keV doses. CONCLUSIONS: DECT with specific post-processing may reduce metal artifacts and significantly enhance the image quality and diagnostic value when evaluating metallic implants.
Authors: Laura Filograna; Nicola Magarelli; Antonio Leone; Chiara de Waure; Giovanna Elisa Calabrò; Tim Finkenstaedt; Michael John Thali; Lorenzo Bonomo Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: T M Link; W Berning; S Scherf; U Joosten; A Joist; K Engelke; H E Daldrup-Link Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2000 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
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: 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: Changsheng Zhou; Yan E Zhao; Song Luo; Hongyuan Shi; Lin Li; Ling Zheng; Long Jiang Zhang; Guangming Lu Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Giovanni Foti; Alberto Beltramello; Giorgio Minerva; Matteo Catania; Massimo Guerriero; Sergio Albanese; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Giovanni Foti; William Mantovani; Matteo Catania; Paolo Avanzi; Simone Caia; Claudio Zorzi; Giovanni Carbognin Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Giuseppe Cicero; Giorgio Ascenti; Moritz H Albrecht; Alfredo Blandino; Marco Cavallaro; Tommaso D'Angelo; Maria Ludovica Carerj; Thomas J Vogl; Silvio Mazziotti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 3.469