Literature DB >> 32930911

Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging.

Theresa Krätzig1, Klaus C Mende2, Malte Mohme2, Helge Kniep3, Marc Dreimann4, Martin Stangenberg4, Manfred Westphal2, Tobias Gauer5, Sven O Eicker2.   

Abstract

Artifacts in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to titanium implants in spine surgery are known to cause difficulties in follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and precise dose delivery in patients with spinal tumors. Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketon (CFRP) implants aim to reduce these artifacts. Our aim was to analyze susceptibility artifacts of these implants using a standardized in vitro model. Titanium and CFRP screw-rod phantoms were embedded in 3% agarose gel. Phantoms were scanned with Siemens Somatom AS Open and 3.0-T Siemens Skyra scanners. Regions of interest (ROIs) were plotted and analyzed for CT and MRI at clinically relevant localizations. CT voxel-based imaging analysis showed a significant difference of artifact intensity and central overlay between titanium and CFRP phantoms. For the virtual regions of the spinal canal, titanium implants (ti) presented - 30.7 HU vs. 33.4 HU mean for CFRP (p < 0.001), at the posterior margin of the vertebral body 68.9 HU (ti) vs. 59.8 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001) and at the anterior part of the vertebral body 201.2 HU (ti) vs. 70.4 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001), respectively. MRI data was only visually interpreted due to the low sample size and lack of an objective measuring system as Hounsfield units in CT. CT imaging of the phantom with typical implant configuration for thoracic stabilization could demonstrate a significant artifact reduction in CFRP implants compared with titanium implants for evaluation of index structures. Radiolucency with less artifacts provides a better interpretation of follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and more precise dose delivery.
© 2020. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK; Imaging; Pedicle screws; Spine surgery; Susceptibility artifacts; Titanium

Year:  2020        PMID: 32930911     DOI: 10.1007/s10143-020-01384-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurg Rev        ISSN: 0344-5607            Impact factor:   3.042


  21 in total

1.  Relation between carbon ion ranges and x-ray CT numbers.

Authors:  O Jäkel; C Jacob; D Schardt; C P Karger; G H Hartmann
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Biomechanical assessment of a PEEK rod system for semi-rigid fixation of lumbar fusion constructs.

Authors:  Matthew F Gornet; Frank W Chan; John C Coleman; Brian Murrell; Russ P Nockels; Brett A Taylor; Todd H Lanman; Jorge A Ochoa
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.097

3.  First experience with Carbon/PEEK pedicle screws.

Authors:  Sven O Eicker; Kara Krajewski; Sebastian Payer; Theresa Krätzig; Marc Dreimann
Journal:  J Neurosurg Sci       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Ranges of ions in metals for use in particle treatment planning.

Authors:  Oliver Jäkel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-04-10       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  The influence of metal artefacts on the range of ion beams.

Authors:  Oliver Jäkel; Petra Reiss
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  Metal artifacts in computed tomography for radiation therapy planning: dosimetric effects and impact of metal artifact reduction.

Authors:  Drosoula Giantsoudi; Bruno De Man; Joost Verburg; Alexei Trofimov; Yannan Jin; Ge Wang; Lars Gjesteby; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Biomechanics of polyaryletherketone rod composites and titanium rods for posterior lumbosacral instrumentation. Presented at the 2010 Joint Spine Section Meeting. Laboratory investigation.

Authors:  Harlan J Bruner; Yabo Guan; Narayan Yoganandan; Frank A Pintar; Dennis J Maiman; Michael A Slivka
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2010-12

8.  Carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK fixation system in the treatment of spine tumors: a preliminary report.

Authors:  Stefano Boriani; Giuseppe Tedesco; Lu Ming; Riccardo Ghermandi; Maurizio Amichetti; Piero Fossati; Marco Krengli; Loredana Mavilla; Alessandro Gasbarrini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance.

Authors:  Julia F Barrett; Nicholas Keat
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

10.  The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial.

Authors:  John W Brantigan; Arvo Neidre; John S Toohey
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone orthopedic implants in musculoskeletal and spinal tumors: imaging and clinical features.

Authors:  Jeremiah R Long; Maziyar A Kalani; Krista A Goulding; Jonathan B Ashman; Jonathan A Flug
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  State-of-the-Art Imaging Techniques in Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression.

Authors:  Tricia Kuah; Balamurugan A Vellayappan; Andrew Makmur; Shalini Nair; Junda Song; Jiong Hao Tan; Naresh Kumar; Swee Tian Quek; James Thomas Patrick Decourcy Hallinan
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 3.  Intramedullary nailing for impending or pathologic fracture of the long bone: titanium vs carbon fiber peek nailing.

Authors:  Elisa Pala; Alberto Procura; Giulia Trovarelli; Antonio Berizzi; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2022-08-04

4.  Navigation accuracy and assessability of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK instrumentation with multimodal intraoperative imaging in spinal oncology.

Authors:  Vanessa Hubertus; Lars Wessels; Anton Früh; Dimitri Tkatschenko; Irini Nulis; Georg Bohner; Vincent Prinz; Julia Onken; Marcus Czabanka; Peter Vajkoczy; Nils Hecht
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 4.996

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.