Alejandro Sisniega1, Gaurav K Thawait1,2, Delaram Shakoor2, Jeffrey H Siewerdsen1,2, Shadpour Demehri2, Wojciech Zbijewski3. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. 2. Russel H Morgan Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21278, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. wzbijewski@jhu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the improvement in extremity cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality in datasets with motion artifact using a motion compensation method based on maximizing image sharpness. METHODS: Following IRB approval, retrospective analysis of 308 CBCT scans of lower extremities was performed by a fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist to identify images with moderate to severe motion artifact. Twenty-four scans of 22 patients (18 male, four female; mean, 32 years old, range, 21-74 years old) were chosen for inclusion. Sharp (bone) and smooth (soft tissue) reconstructions were processed using the motion compensation algorithm. Two experts rated visualization of trabecular bone, cortical bone, joint spaces, and tendon on a nine-level Likert scale with and without motion compensation (a total of 96 datasets). Visual grading characteristics (VGC) was used to quantitatively determine the difference in image quality following motion compensation. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was obtained to assess inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: Motion-compensated images exhibited appreciable reduction in artifacts. The observer study demonstrated the associated improvement in diagnostic quality. The fraction of cases receiving scores better than "Fair" increased from less than 10% without compensation to 40-70% following compensation, depending on the task. The area under the VGC curve was 0.75 (tendon) to 0.85 (cortical bone), confirming preference for motion compensated images. ICC values showed excellent agreement between readers before (ICC range, 0.8-0.91) and after motion compensation (ICC range, 0.92-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The motion compensation algorithm significantly improved the visualization of bone and soft tissue structures in extremity CBCT for cases exhibiting patient motion.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the improvement in extremity cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image quality in datasets with motion artifact using a motion compensation method based on maximizing image sharpness. METHODS: Following IRB approval, retrospective analysis of 308 CBCT scans of lower extremities was performed by a fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist to identify images with moderate to severe motion artifact. Twenty-four scans of 22 patients (18 male, four female; mean, 32 years old, range, 21-74 years old) were chosen for inclusion. Sharp (bone) and smooth (soft tissue) reconstructions were processed using the motion compensation algorithm. Two experts rated visualization of trabecular bone, cortical bone, joint spaces, and tendon on a nine-level Likert scale with and without motion compensation (a total of 96 datasets). Visual grading characteristics (VGC) was used to quantitatively determine the difference in image quality following motion compensation. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was obtained to assess inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: Motion-compensated images exhibited appreciable reduction in artifacts. The observer study demonstrated the associated improvement in diagnostic quality. The fraction of cases receiving scores better than "Fair" increased from less than 10% without compensation to 40-70% following compensation, depending on the task. The area under the VGC curve was 0.75 (tendon) to 0.85 (cortical bone), confirming preference for motion compensated images. ICC values showed excellent agreement between readers before (ICC range, 0.8-0.91) and after motion compensation (ICC range, 0.92-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The motion compensation algorithm significantly improved the visualization of bone and soft tissue structures in extremity CBCT for cases exhibiting patient motion.
Authors: Shadpour Demehri; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; John N Morelli; Uma Thakur; Scott D Lifchez; Kenneth R Means; John Eng; Jaimie T Shores Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Delaram Shakoor; Greg M Osgood; Michael Brehler; Wojciech B Zbijewski; Cesar de Cesar Netto; Babar Shafiq; Jakrapong Orapin; Gaurav K Thawait; Lew C Shon; Shadpour Demehri Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: John A Carrino; Abdullah Al Muhit; Wojciech Zbijewski; Gaurav K Thawait; J Webster Stayman; Nathan Packard; Robert Senn; Dong Yang; David H Foos; John Yorkston; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jang-Hwan Choi; Andreas Maier; Andreas Keil; Saikat Pal; Emily J McWalter; Gary S Beaupré; Garry E Gold; Rebecca Fahrig Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Greg M Osgood; Gaurav K Thawait; Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Delaram Shakoor; Adam Shaner; John Yorkston; Wojciech B Zbijewski; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Shadpour Demehri Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Cesar de Cesar Netto; Lew C Schon; Gaurav K Thawait; Lucas Furtado da Fonseca; Apisan Chinanuvathana; Wojciech B Zbijewski; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen; Shadpour Demehri Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Gaurav K Thawait; Shadpour Demehri; Abdullah AlMuhit; Wojciech Zbijweski; John Yorkston; Filippo Del Grande; Bashir Zikria; John A Carrino; Jeffrey H Siewerdsen Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: H Huang; J H Siewerdsen; W Zbijewski; C R Weiss; M Unberath; T Ehtiati; A Sisniega Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.174