Rashpal Sandhu1, Mercan Aslan1, Nancy Obuchowski2, Andrew Primak3, Wadih Karim1, Naveen Subhas4. 1. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 2. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 3. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Malvern, PA, 19355, USA. 4. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. subhasn@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of producing 2-dimensional (2D) virtual noncontrast images and 3-dimensional (3D) bone models from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) arthrograms and to determine whether this is best accomplished using 190 keV virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) or virtual unenhanced (VUE) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VMI and VUE images were retrospectively reconstructed from patients with internal derangement of the shoulder or knee joint who underwent DECT arthrography between September 2017 and August 2019. A region of interest was placed in the area of brightest contrast, and the mean attenuation (in Hounsfield units [HUs]) was recorded. Two blinded musculoskeletal radiologists qualitatively graded the 2D images and 3D models using scores ranging from 0 to 3 (0 considered optimal). RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (mean age ± SD, 57.5 ± 16.8 years; 6 women) were included in the study. The contrast attenuation on VUE images (overall mean ± SD, 10.5 ± 16.4 HU; knee, 19.3 ± 10.7 HU; shoulder, 5.0 ± 17.2 HU) was significantly lower (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) than on VMI (overall mean ± SD, 107.7 ± 43.8 HU; knee, 104.6 ± 31.1 HU; shoulder, 109.6 ± 51.0 HU). The proportion of cases with optimal scores (0 or 1) was significantly higher with VUE than with VMI for both 2D and 3D images (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DECT arthrography can be used to produce 2D virtual noncontrast images and to generate 3D bone models. The VUE technique is superior to VMI in producing virtual noncontrast images.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of producing 2-dimensional (2D) virtual noncontrast images and 3-dimensional (3D) bone models from dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) arthrograms and to determine whether this is best accomplished using 190 keV virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) or virtual unenhanced (VUE) images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: VMI and VUE images were retrospectively reconstructed from patients with internal derangement of the shoulder or knee joint who underwent DECT arthrography between September 2017 and August 2019. A region of interest was placed in the area of brightest contrast, and the mean attenuation (in Hounsfield units [HUs]) was recorded. Two blinded musculoskeletal radiologists qualitatively graded the 2D images and 3D models using scores ranging from 0 to 3 (0 considered optimal). RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (mean age ± SD, 57.5 ± 16.8 years; 6 women) were included in the study. The contrast attenuation on VUE images (overall mean ± SD, 10.5 ± 16.4 HU; knee, 19.3 ± 10.7 HU; shoulder, 5.0 ± 17.2 HU) was significantly lower (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) than on VMI (overall mean ± SD, 107.7 ± 43.8 HU; knee, 104.6 ± 31.1 HU; shoulder, 109.6 ± 51.0 HU). The proportion of cases with optimal scores (0 or 1) was significantly higher with VUE than with VMI for both 2D and 3D images (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DECT arthrography can be used to produce 2D virtual noncontrast images and to generate 3D bone models. The VUE technique is superior to VMI in producing virtual noncontrast images.
Authors: William P Shuman; Douglas E Green; Janet M Busey; Lee M Mitsumori; Eunice Choi; Kent M Koprowicz; Kalpana M Kanal Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Daniele Marin; Rendon C Nelson; Huiman Barnhart; Sebastian T Schindera; Lisa M Ho; Tracy A Jaffe; Terry T Yoshizumi; Richard Youngblood; Ehsan Samei Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: U K Bodanapally; D Dreizin; G Issa; K L Archer-Arroyo; K Sudini; T R Fleiter Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Elizabeth M Hecht; Christoph R Becker; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Staehler; Christian G Stief; Henriette Hildebrandt; Myrna C B Godoy; Myra E Finn; Flora Stepansky; Maximilian F Reiser; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christoph Stern; Dimitri N Graf; Samy Bouaicha; Karl Wieser; Andrea B Rosskopf; Reto Sutter Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.128