Hildegard M Wichtmann1, Kai R Laukamp2, Sebastian Manneck1, Konrad Appelt1, Bram Stieltjes1, Daniel T Boll1, Matthias R Benz1,3, Markus M Obmann4. 1. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031, Basel, Switzerland. Markus.Obmann@usb.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess image quality and metal artifact reduction in split-filter dual-energy CT (sfDECT) of the abdomen with hip or spinal implants using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) and iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm (iMAR). METHODS: 102 portal-venous abdominal sfDECTs of patients with hip (n = 71) or spinal implants (n = 31) were included in this study. Images were reconstructed as 120kVp-equivalent images (Mixed) and VMI (40-190 keV), with and without iMAR. Quantitative artifact and image noise was measured using 12 different ROIs. Subjective image quality was rated by two readers using a five-point Likert-scale in six categories, including overall image quality and vascular contrast. RESULTS: Lowest quantitative artifact in both hip and spinal implants was measured in VMI190keV-iMAR. However, it was not significantly lower than in MixediMAR (for all ROIs, p = 1.00), which were rated best for overall image quality (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00-2.00], spine: 3.00 [IQR:2.00-3.00]). VMI50keV-iMAR was rated best for vascular contrast (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00-2.00], spine: 2.00 [IQR: 1.00-2.00]), which was significantly better than Mixed (both, p < 0.001). VMI50keV-iMAR provided superior overall image quality compared to Mixed for hip (1.00 vs 2.00, p < 0.001) and similar diagnostic image quality for spinal implants (2.00 vs 2.00, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: For abdominal sfDECT with hip or spinal implants MixediMAR images should be used. High keV VMI do not further improve image quality. IMAR allows the use of low keV images (VMI50keV) to improve vascular contrast, compared to Mixed images.
PURPOSE: To assess image quality and metal artifact reduction in split-filter dual-energy CT (sfDECT) of the abdomen with hip or spinal implants using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) and iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm (iMAR). METHODS: 102 portal-venous abdominal sfDECTs of patients with hip (n = 71) or spinal implants (n = 31) were included in this study. Images were reconstructed as 120kVp-equivalent images (Mixed) and VMI (40-190 keV), with and without iMAR. Quantitative artifact and image noise was measured using 12 different ROIs. Subjective image quality was rated by two readers using a five-point Likert-scale in six categories, including overall image quality and vascular contrast. RESULTS: Lowest quantitative artifact in both hip and spinal implants was measured in VMI190keV-iMAR. However, it was not significantly lower than in MixediMAR (for all ROIs, p = 1.00), which were rated best for overall image quality (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00-2.00], spine: 3.00 [IQR:2.00-3.00]). VMI50keV-iMAR was rated best for vascular contrast (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00-2.00], spine: 2.00 [IQR: 1.00-2.00]), which was significantly better than Mixed (both, p < 0.001). VMI50keV-iMAR provided superior overall image quality compared to Mixed for hip (1.00 vs 2.00, p < 0.001) and similar diagnostic image quality for spinal implants (2.00 vs 2.00, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: For abdominal sfDECT with hip or spinal implants MixediMAR images should be used. High keV VMI do not further improve image quality. IMAR allows the use of low keV images (VMI50keV) to improve vascular contrast, compared to Mixed images.
Authors: Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; Lynne Steinbach; Daniel T Boll; W Dennis Foley; Ravi K Kaza; David N Bolus; Desiree E Morgan; Dushyant V Sahani; William P Shuman; Marilyn J Siegel; Terri J Vrtiska; Benjamin M Yeh; Lincoln L Berland Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Marilyn J Siegel; Ravi K Kaza; David N Bolus; Daniel T Boll; Neil M Rofsky; Carlo N De Cecco; W Dennis Foley; Desiree E Morgan; U Joseph Schoepf; Dushyant V Sahani; William P Shuman; Terri J Vrtiska; Benjamin M Yeh; Lincoln L Berland Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Karin M Andersson; Christina Vallhagen Dahlgren; Johan Reizenstein; Yang Cao; Anders Ahnesjö; Per Thunberg Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Zaiyang Long; Michael R Bruesewitz; David R DeLone; Jonathan M Morris; Kimberly K Amrami; Mark C Adkins; Katrina N Glazebrook; James M Kofler; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough; Joel G Fletcher; Ahmed F Halaweish; Lifeng Yu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 2.102