Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla

  • Scientific Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 23 August 2015

Abstract

Purpose

This work aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a metal artifact suppression sequence (MAVRIC-SL) for imaging of hip arthroplasties (HA) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) field strength.

Methods

Eighteen patients (10 females; aged 27–74) with HA were examined at 3.0 and 1.5 T within 3 weeks. The sequence protocol included 3D-MAVRIC-SL PD (coronal), 3D-MAVRIC-SL STIR (axial), FSE T1, FSE PD and STIR sequences. Anatomical structures and pathological findings were assessed independently by two radiologists. Artifact extent and technical quality (image quality, fat saturation and geometric distortion) were also evaluated. Findings at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

While image quality was better at 1.5 T, visualization of anatomic structures and clinical abnormalities was not significantly different using the two field strengths (p > 0.05). Fat suppression and amount of artifacts were significantly better at 1.5 T (p  < 0.01). Inter- and intra-reader agreement for different anatomic details, image quality and visualization of abnormalities ranged from k = 0.62 to k = 1.00.

Conclusion

MAVRIC-SL at 1.5 T had a comparable diagnostic performance when compared MAVRIC-SL at 3.0 T; however, the higher field strength was associated with larger artifacts, limited image quality and worse fat saturation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shan L, Shan B, Graham D, Saxena A. Total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis on mid-term quality of life. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014;22(3):389–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh JA. Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:80–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2007;89(4):780–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Iorio R, Healy WL, Warren PD, Appleby D. Lateral trochanteric pain following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(2):233–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vicar AJ, Coleman CR. A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;188:152–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saito S, Ryu J, Oikawa H, Honda T. Clinical results of Harris-Galante total hip arthroplasty without cement: follow-up study of over five years. Bulletin. 1997;56(4):191–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Blankenbaker DG, Ullrick SR, Davis KW, De Smet AA, Haaland B, Fine JP. Correlation of MRI findings with clinical findings of trochanteric pain syndrome. Skelet Radiol. 2008;37(10):903–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas MS, Wimhurst JA, Nolan JF, Toms AP. Imaging metal-on-metal hip replacements: the Norwich experience. HSS J. 2013;9(3):247–56.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, Janzen DL, MacKay AL, Xiang QS, et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics. 2000;20(3):699–712.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(1):66–76.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koch KM, Lorbiecki JE, Hinks RS, King KF. A multispectral three-dimensional acquisition technique for imaging near metal implants. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(2):381–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koch KM, Brau AC, Chen W, Gold GE, Hargreaves BA, Koff M, et al. Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC-SEMAC hybrid. Magn Reson Med. 2011;65(1):71–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kretzschmar M, Nardo L, Han MM, Heilmeier U, Sam C, Joseph GB, et al. Metal artefact suppression at 3 T MRI: comparison of MAVRIC-SL with conventional fast spin echo sequences in patients with hip joint arthroplasty. European Radiol. 2015.

  14. Choi SJ, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Stevens KJ, Gold GE. Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(1):140–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liebl H, Heilmeier U, Lee S, Nardo L, Patsch J, Schuppert C, et al. In vitro assessment of knee MRI in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014.

  16. Yanny S, Cahir JG, Barker T, Wimhurst J, Nolan JF, Goodwin RW, et al. MRI of aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis-associated lesions in metal-on-metal hip replacements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):1394–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee YH, Lim D, Kim E, Kim S, Song HT, Suh JS. Usefulness of slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) for reducing metallic artifacts in 3-T MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(5):703–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Garwood M, Ugurbil K, Rath AR, Bendall MR, Ross BD, Mitchell SL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging with adiabatic pulses using a single surface coil for RF transmission and signal detection. Magn Reson Med. 1989;9(1):25–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA, Aro MR, Dean CW, Gold GE, et al. Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographics. 2014;34(1):217–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Graf H, Steidle G, Martirosian P, Lauer UA, Schick F. Effects on MRI due to altered rf polarization near conductive implants or instruments. Med Phys. 2006;33(1):124–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(3):433–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Farrelly C, Davarpanah A, Brennan SA, Sampson M, Eustace SJ. Imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware: comparison of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W60–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Grant support

We thank General Electric Healthcare for research funding and support. This research was in part funded with support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Grant numbers include U01 AR059507, R01 AR057336 and P50 AR060752.

Conflict of interest

All authors except for Dr. Michele Guindani have conflict of interests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Musculoskeletal and Quantitative Imaging Research, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 185 Berry street, suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA

    Lorenzo Nardo, Misung Han, Martin Kretschmar, Roland Krug & Thomas M. Link

  2. Department of Biostatistics – Unit 1411, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, P.O. Box 301402, Houston, TX, 77230-1402, USA

    Michele Guindani

  3. Department of Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA

    Kevin Koch

  4. Department of Radiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA

    Kevin Koch

  5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, MU320, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA

    Thomas Vail

Authors
  1. Lorenzo Nardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Misung Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Kretschmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michele Guindani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kevin Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Vail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Roland Krug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thomas M. Link
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenzo Nardo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nardo, L., Han, M., Kretschmar, M. et al. Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla. Skeletal Radiol 44, 1609–1616 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2214-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2214-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation