OBJECTIVES: Despite significant progress, artifact-free visualization of the bone and soft tissues around hip arthroplasty implants remains an unmet clinical need. New-generation low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems now include slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC), which may result in smaller metallic artifacts and better image quality than standard-of-care 1.5 T MRI. This study aims to assess the feasibility of SEMAC on a new-generation 0.55 T system, optimize the pulse protocol parameters, and compare the results with those of a standard-of-care 1.5 T MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Titanium (Ti) and cobalt-chromium total hip arthroplasty implants embedded in a tissue-mimicking American Society for Testing and Materials gel phantom were evaluated using turbo spin echo, view angle tilting (VAT), and combined VAT and SEMAC (VAT + SEMAC) pulse sequences. To refine an MRI protocol at 0.55 T, the type of metal artifact reduction techniques and the effect of various pulse sequence parameters on metal artifacts were assessed through qualitative ranking of the images by 3 expert readers while taking measured spatial resolution, signal-to-noise ratios, and acquisition times into consideration. Signal-to-noise ratio efficiency and artifact size of the optimized 0.55 T protocols were compared with the 1.5 T standard and compressed-sensing SEMAC sequences. RESULTS: Overall, the VAT + SEMAC sequence with at least 6 SEMAC encoding steps for Ti and 9 for cobalt-chromium implants was ranked higher than other sequences for metal reduction ( P < 0.05). Additional SEMAC encoding partitions did not result in further metal artifact reductions. Permitting minimal residual artifacts, low magnetic susceptibility Ti constructs may be sufficiently imaged with optimized turbo spin echo sequences obviating the need for SEMAC. In cross-platform comparison, 0.55 T acquisitions using the optimized protocols are associated with 45% to 64% smaller artifacts than 1.5 T VAT + SEMAC and VAT + compressed-sensing/SEMAC protocols at the expense of a 17% to 28% reduction in signal-to-noise ratio efficiency. B 1 -related artifacts are invariably smaller at 0.55 T than 1.5 T; however, artifacts related to B 0 distortion, although frequently smaller, may appear as signal pileups at 0.55 T. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that new-generation low-field SEMAC MRI reduces metal artifacts around hip arthroplasty implants to better advantage than current 1.5 T MRI standard of care. While the appearance of B 0 -related artifacts changes, reduction in B 1 -related artifacts plays a major role in the overall benefit of 0.55 T.
OBJECTIVES: Despite significant progress, artifact-free visualization of the bone and soft tissues around hip arthroplasty implants remains an unmet clinical need. New-generation low-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems now include slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC), which may result in smaller metallic artifacts and better image quality than standard-of-care 1.5 T MRI. This study aims to assess the feasibility of SEMAC on a new-generation 0.55 T system, optimize the pulse protocol parameters, and compare the results with those of a standard-of-care 1.5 T MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Titanium (Ti) and cobalt-chromium total hip arthroplasty implants embedded in a tissue-mimicking American Society for Testing and Materials gel phantom were evaluated using turbo spin echo, view angle tilting (VAT), and combined VAT and SEMAC (VAT + SEMAC) pulse sequences. To refine an MRI protocol at 0.55 T, the type of metal artifact reduction techniques and the effect of various pulse sequence parameters on metal artifacts were assessed through qualitative ranking of the images by 3 expert readers while taking measured spatial resolution, signal-to-noise ratios, and acquisition times into consideration. Signal-to-noise ratio efficiency and artifact size of the optimized 0.55 T protocols were compared with the 1.5 T standard and compressed-sensing SEMAC sequences. RESULTS: Overall, the VAT + SEMAC sequence with at least 6 SEMAC encoding steps for Ti and 9 for cobalt-chromium implants was ranked higher than other sequences for metal reduction ( P < 0.05). Additional SEMAC encoding partitions did not result in further metal artifact reductions. Permitting minimal residual artifacts, low magnetic susceptibility Ti constructs may be sufficiently imaged with optimized turbo spin echo sequences obviating the need for SEMAC. In cross-platform comparison, 0.55 T acquisitions using the optimized protocols are associated with 45% to 64% smaller artifacts than 1.5 T VAT + SEMAC and VAT + compressed-sensing/SEMAC protocols at the expense of a 17% to 28% reduction in signal-to-noise ratio efficiency. B 1 -related artifacts are invariably smaller at 0.55 T than 1.5 T; however, artifacts related to B 0 distortion, although frequently smaller, may appear as signal pileups at 0.55 T. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that new-generation low-field SEMAC MRI reduces metal artifacts around hip arthroplasty implants to better advantage than current 1.5 T MRI standard of care. While the appearance of B 0 -related artifacts changes, reduction in B 1 -related artifacts plays a major role in the overall benefit of 0.55 T.
Authors: Alessandro Stecco; Roberto Arioli; Francesco Buemi; Giuseppe Parziale; Alessandra Trisoglio; Eleonora Soligo; Paolo Cerini; Massimiliano Leigheb; Marco Brambilla; Gerardo Di Nardo; Giuseppe Guzzardi; Alessandro Carriero Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Rafael Heiss; Armin M Nagel; Frederik B Laun; Michael Uder; Sebastian Bickelhaupt Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Iman Khodarahmi; Sunder Rajan; Robert Sterling; Kevin Koch; John Kirsch; Jan Fritz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Rajiv Ramasawmy; Matthew C Restivo; Ipshita Bhattacharya; Burcu Basar; Daniel A Herzka; Michael S Hansen; Toby Rogers; W Patricia Bandettini; Delaney R McGuirt; Christine Mancini; David Grodzki; Rainer Schneider; Waqas Majeed; Himanshu Bhat; Hui Xue; Joel Moss; Ashkan A Malayeri; Elizabeth C Jones; Alan P Koretsky; Peter Kellman; Marcus Y Chen; Robert J Lederman; Robert S Balaban Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Barun Bagga; Chenchan Huang; Bari Dane; Robert Petrocelli; Mary Bruno; Mahesh Keerthivasan; David Grodzki; Kai Tobias Block; David Stoffel; Daniel K Sodickson Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-08-20
Authors: Bili Wang; Syed S Siddiq; Jerzy Walczyk; Mary Bruno; Iman Khodarahmi; Inge M Brinkmann; Robert Rehner; Karthik Lakshmanan; Jan Fritz; Ryan Brown Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.996