OBJECTIVES: This study compares metal artifact (MA) reduction in imaging of total hip replacements (THR) using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), for MA-reduction-specialized reconstructions (MAR) and conventional CT images (CI) from detector-based dual-energy computed tomography (SDCT). METHODS: Twenty-seven SDCT-datasets of patients carrying THR were included. CI, MAR and VMI with different energy-levels (60-200 keV) were reconstructed from the same scans. MA width was measured. Attenuation (HU), noise (SD) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were determined in: extinction artifact, adjacent bone, muscle and bladder. Two radiologists assessed MA-reduction and image quality visually. RESULTS: In comparison to CI, VMI (200 keV) and MAR showed a strong artifact reduction (MA width: CI 29.9±6.8 mm, VMI 17.6±13.6 mm, p<0.001; MAR 16.5±14.9 mm, p<0.001; MA density: CI -412.1±204.5 HU, VMI -279.7±283.7 HU; p<0.01; MAR -116.74±105.6 HU, p<0.001). In strong artifacts reduction was superior by MAR. In moderate artifacts VMI was more effective. MAR showed best noise reduction and CNR in bladder and muscle (p<0.05), whereas VMI were superior for depiction of bone (p<0.05). Visual assessment confirmed that VMI and MAR improve artifact reduction and image quality (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MAR and VMI (200 keV) yielded significant MA reduction. Each showed distinct advantages both regarding effectiveness of artifact reduction, MAR regarding assessment of soft tissue and VMI regarding assessment of bone. KEY POINTS: • Spectral-detector computed tomography improves assessment of total hip replacements and surrounding tissue. • Virtual monoenergetic images and MAR reduce metal artifacts and enhance image quality. • Evaluation of bone, muscle and pelvic organs can be improved by SDCT.
OBJECTIVES: This study compares metal artifact (MA) reduction in imaging of total hip replacements (THR) using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), for MA-reduction-specialized reconstructions (MAR) and conventional CT images (CI) from detector-based dual-energy computed tomography (SDCT). METHODS: Twenty-seven SDCT-datasets of patients carrying THR were included. CI, MAR and VMI with different energy-levels (60-200 keV) were reconstructed from the same scans. MA width was measured. Attenuation (HU), noise (SD) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were determined in: extinction artifact, adjacent bone, muscle and bladder. Two radiologists assessed MA-reduction and image quality visually. RESULTS: In comparison to CI, VMI (200 keV) and MAR showed a strong artifact reduction (MA width: CI 29.9±6.8 mm, VMI 17.6±13.6 mm, p<0.001; MAR 16.5±14.9 mm, p<0.001; MA density: CI -412.1±204.5 HU, VMI -279.7±283.7 HU; p<0.01; MAR -116.74±105.6 HU, p<0.001). In strong artifacts reduction was superior by MAR. In moderate artifacts VMI was more effective. MAR showed best noise reduction and CNR in bladder and muscle (p<0.05), whereas VMI were superior for depiction of bone (p<0.05). Visual assessment confirmed that VMI and MAR improve artifact reduction and image quality (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MAR and VMI (200 keV) yielded significant MA reduction. Each showed distinct advantages both regarding effectiveness of artifact reduction, MAR regarding assessment of soft tissue and VMI regarding assessment of bone. KEY POINTS: • Spectral-detector computed tomography improves assessment of total hip replacements and surrounding tissue. • Virtual monoenergetic images and MAR reduce metal artifacts and enhance image quality. • Evaluation of bone, muscle and pelvic organs can be improved by SDCT.
Authors: Alvin C Silva; Brian G Morse; Amy K Hara; Robert G Paden; Norio Hongo; William Pavlicek Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Yue Dong; Ai Jun Shi; Jian Lin Wu; Ru Xin Wang; Li Fei Sun; Ai Lian Liu; Yi Jun Liu Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-06-13 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Victor Neuhaus; Nuran Abdullayev; Nils Große Hokamp; Gregor Pahn; Christoph Kabbasch; Anastasios Mpotsaris; David Maintz; Jan Borggrefe Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: R Bisschop; M F Boomsma; J J A M Van Raay; A T M G Tiebosch; M Maas; C L E Gerritsma Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Chukwuweike U Gwam; Jaydev B Mistry; Nequesha S Mohamed; Melbin Thomas; Kevin C Bigart; Michael A Mont; Ronald E Delanois Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jeffrey N Katz; Elizabeth A Wright; John Wright; Henrik Malchau; Nizar N Mahomed; Margaret Stedman; John A Baron; Elena Losina Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 5.284
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: 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: Kai Roman Laukamp; Simon Lennartz; Vivian Ho; Nils Große Hokamp; David Zopfs; Amit Gupta; Frank Philipp Graner; Jan Borggrefe; Robert Gilkeson; Nikhil Ramaiya Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 3.039
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