Aikaterini Fitsiori1, Steve Philippe Martin2, Alix Juillet De Saint Lager3, Joanna Gariani1, Karl-Olof Lovblad1, Xavier Montet3, Maria Isabel Vargas1. 1. Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Division of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland. Steve.Martin@hcuge.ch. 3. Division of Radiology, Department of Imaging and Medical Information Sciences, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) on artifacts related to neurosurgical clips or endovascular coils when combined to filtered back projection (FBP) or advanced modelled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study 21 unenhanced brain computed tomography (CT) examinations were reconstructed with FBP and level 2 of ADMIRE, both techniques with and without iMAR algorithm, resulting in 4 series per acquisition. Subjective assessment of artifact reduction was performed as a double-blinded evaluation with a 5-point-scale. Objective analysis was performed by comparing central tendencies and distributions of voxel densities. The central tendency was assessed as the mean voxel density in Hounsfield units. The distribution was assessed by evaluating the shape and asymmetry of the histograms of voxels densities with measures of kurtosis and skewness, respectively. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was excellent (>0.8). FBP and ADMIRE without iMAR were scored 4 and with iMAR 5. Unusual artifacts were noted in all of the series reconstructed with iMAR, especially when combined with ADMIRE. Kurtosis revealed statistical differences for all reconstruction techniques (p ≤ 0.0007) except for the association of FBP with iMAR (p = 0.2211) for the coiling population and skewness demonstrated no statistical difference in any population (p ≥ 0.0558), confirming the subjective analysis results, except for the ADMIRE algorithm with or without iMAR (p ≤ 0.0342) in the coiling population. CONCLUSION: iMAR led to the reduction in artifacts due to intracranial metallic devices. However, it created a new artifact in the form of a halo of photon-starvation, especially when combined with ADMIRE. The combination of FBP and iMAR seems more suitable, combining the beneficial metal artifact reduction without the emergence of a halo of photon starvation just around the point of interest.
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) on artifacts related to neurosurgical clips or endovascular coils when combined to filtered back projection (FBP) or advanced modelled iterative reconstruction (ADMIRE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study 21 unenhanced brain computed tomography (CT) examinations were reconstructed with FBP and level 2 of ADMIRE, both techniques with and without iMAR algorithm, resulting in 4 series per acquisition. Subjective assessment of artifact reduction was performed as a double-blinded evaluation with a 5-point-scale. Objective analysis was performed by comparing central tendencies and distributions of voxel densities. The central tendency was assessed as the mean voxel density in Hounsfield units. The distribution was assessed by evaluating the shape and asymmetry of the histograms of voxels densities with measures of kurtosis and skewness, respectively. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was excellent (>0.8). FBP and ADMIRE without iMAR were scored 4 and with iMAR 5. Unusual artifacts were noted in all of the series reconstructed with iMAR, especially when combined with ADMIRE. Kurtosis revealed statistical differences for all reconstruction techniques (p ≤ 0.0007) except for the association of FBP with iMAR (p = 0.2211) for the coiling population and skewness demonstrated no statistical difference in any population (p ≥ 0.0558), confirming the subjective analysis results, except for the ADMIRE algorithm with or without iMAR (p ≤ 0.0342) in the coiling population. CONCLUSION: iMAR led to the reduction in artifacts due to intracranial metallic devices. However, it created a new artifact in the form of a halo of photon-starvation, especially when combined with ADMIRE. The combination of FBP and iMAR seems more suitable, combining the beneficial metal artifact reduction without the emergence of a halo of photon starvation just around the point of interest.
Authors: J B Bederson; I A Awad; D O Wiebers; D Piepgras; E C Haley; T Brott; G Hademenos; D Chyatte; R Rosenwasser; C Caroselli Journal: Stroke Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: I M J van der Bom; S Y Hou; A S Puri; G Spilberg; D Ruijters; P van de Haar; B Carelsen; S Vedantham; M J Gounis; A K Wakhloo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Angeliki Neroladaki; Steve Philippe Martin; Ilias Bagetakos; Diomidis Botsikas; Marion Hamard; Xavier Montet; Sana Boudabbous Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.817
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