Florian A Huber1, Kai Sprengel2, Lydia Müller3, Laura C Graf3, Georg Osterhoff2,4, Roman Guggenberger3. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. florian.huber@usz.ch. 2. Department of Trauma, University Hospital Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Plastic Surgery, University Hospital Leipzig, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CT artifacts induced by orthopedic implants can limit image quality and diagnostic yield. As a number of different strategies to reduce artifact extent exist, the aim of this study was to systematically compare ex vivo the impact of different CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) strategies on spine implants made of either standard titanium or carbon-fiber-reinforced-polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK). METHODS: Spine surgeons fluoroscopically-guided prepared six sheep spine cadavers with pedicle screws and rods of either titanium or CFR-PEEK. Samples were subjected to single- and dual-energy (DE) CT-imaging. Different tube voltages (80, DE mixed, 120 and tin-filtered 150 kVp) at comparable radiation dose and iterative reconstruction versus monoenergetic extrapolation (ME) techniques were compared. Also, the influence of image reconstruction kernels (soft vs. bone tissue) was investigated. Qualitative (Likert scores) and quantitative parameters (attenuation changes induced by implant artifact, implant diameter and image noise) were evaluated by two independent radiologists. Artifact degree of different MAR-strategies and implant materials were compared by multiple ANOVA analysis. RESULTS: CFR-PEEK implants induced markedly less artifacts than standard titanium implants (p < .001). This effect was substantially larger than any other tested MAR technique. Reconstruction algorithms had small impact in CFR-PEEK implants and differed significantly in MAR efficiency (p < .001) with best MAR performance for DECT ME 130 keV (bone kernel). Significant differences in image noise between reconstruction kernels were seen (p < .001) with minor impact on artifact degree. CONCLUSIONS: CFR-PEEK spine implants induce significantly less artifacts than standard titanium compositions with higher MAR efficiency than any alternate scanning or image reconstruction strategy. DECT ME 130 keV image reconstructions showed least metal artifacts. Reconstruction kernels primarily modulate image noise with minor impact on artifact degree.
BACKGROUND: CT artifacts induced by orthopedic implants can limit image quality and diagnostic yield. As a number of different strategies to reduce artifact extent exist, the aim of this study was to systematically compare ex vivo the impact of different CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) strategies on spine implants made of either standard titanium or carbon-fiber-reinforced-polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK). METHODS: Spine surgeons fluoroscopically-guided prepared six sheep spine cadavers with pedicle screws and rods of either titanium or CFR-PEEK. Samples were subjected to single- and dual-energy (DE) CT-imaging. Different tube voltages (80, DE mixed, 120 and tin-filtered 150 kVp) at comparable radiation dose and iterative reconstruction versus monoenergetic extrapolation (ME) techniques were compared. Also, the influence of image reconstruction kernels (soft vs. bone tissue) was investigated. Qualitative (Likert scores) and quantitative parameters (attenuation changes induced by implant artifact, implant diameter and image noise) were evaluated by two independent radiologists. Artifact degree of different MAR-strategies and implant materials were compared by multiple ANOVA analysis. RESULTS: CFR-PEEK implants induced markedly less artifacts than standard titanium implants (p < .001). This effect was substantially larger than any other tested MAR technique. Reconstruction algorithms had small impact in CFR-PEEK implants and differed significantly in MAR efficiency (p < .001) with best MAR performance for DECT ME 130 keV (bone kernel). Significant differences in image noise between reconstruction kernels were seen (p < .001) with minor impact on artifact degree. CONCLUSIONS: CFR-PEEK spine implants induce significantly less artifacts than standard titanium compositions with higher MAR efficiency than any alternate scanning or image reconstruction strategy. DECT ME 130 keV image reconstructions showed least metal artifacts. Reconstruction kernels primarily modulate image noise with minor impact on artifact degree.
Authors: R Guggenberger; S Winklhofer; G Osterhoff; G A Wanner; M Fortunati; G Andreisek; H Alkadhi; P Stolzmann Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-05-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Giacomo D E Papini; Filippo Casolo; Giovanni Di Leo; Silvia Briganti; Cecilia Fantoni; Massimo Medda; Luigi Inglese; Luigi De Ambroggi; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: R Zanoni; C A Ioannidu; L Mazzola; L Politi; C Misiano; G Longo; M Falconieri; R Scandurra Journal: Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 7.328
Authors: Fabian Bamberg; Alexander Dierks; Konstantin Nikolaou; Maximilian F Reiser; Christoph R Becker; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Yann Philippe Charles; Rawan Al Ansari; Arnaud Collinet; Pierre De Marini; Jean Schwartz; Rami Nachabe; Dirk Schäfer; Bernhard Brendel; Afshin Gangi; Roberto Luigi Cazzato Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 3.847