Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 9, pp 1317–1325 | Cite as

Carbon fiber intramedullary nails reduce artifact in postoperative advanced imaging

  • Melissa N. Zimel
  • Sinchun Hwang
  • Elyn R. Riedel
  • John H. HealeyEmail author
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

This study assessed whether radiolucent carbon fiber reinforced-polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) intramedullary nails decreased hardware artifact on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) in vitro and in an oncologic patient population.

Materials and methods

In vitro and clinical evaluations were done. A qualitative assessment of metal artifact was performed using CFR-PEEK and titanium nail MRI phantoms. Eight patients with a femoral or tibial prophylactic CFR-PEEK nail were retrospectively identified. All patients had postoperative surveillance imaging by MRI, CT, and were followed for a median 20 months (range, 12–28 months). CFR-PEEK images were compared to images from a comparative group of patients with titanium femoral intramedullary nails who had a postoperative MRI or CT. A musculoskeletal-trained radiologist graded visualization of the cortex, corticomedullary junction, and bone–muscle interface, on T1-weighted (T1W), STIR, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted fat-saturated (T1W FS) sequences of both groups with a five-point scale, performing independent reviews 4 months apart. Statistical analysis used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and a weighted kappa.

Results

Substantially less MRI signal loss occurred in the CFR-PEEK phantom than in the titanium phantom simulation, particularly as the angle increased with respect to direction of the static magnetic field. CFR-PEEK nails had less MRI artifact than titanium nails on scored T1W, STIR, and contrast-enhanced T1W FS MRI sequences (p ≤ 0.03). The mean weighted kappa was 0.64, showing excellent intraobserver reliability between readings.

Conclusions

CFR-PEEK intramedullary nail fixation is a superior alternative to minimize implant artifact on MRI or CT imaging for patients requiring long bone fixation.

Keywords

Carbon fiber CFR-PEEK Intramedullary nail MRI artifact CT artifact Postoperative imaging Oncology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Gregory Donaldson, Yousef Mazaheri, PhD, Duane Nicholson, Bernard Woodham, and Alex Yu, all from the Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, for technical assistance with the MRI phantom imaging portion of this study. We also thank the Major Family Philanthropic Fund for its generous financial support of the Orthopaedic Fellowship Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no financial conflicts of interest. This study received no financial support from the manufacturer of the CFR-PEEK intramedullary nail examined.

References

  1. 1.
    Lin P, Schupak K, Boland P, Brennan M, Healey J. Pathologic femoral fracture after periosteal excision and radiation for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer. 1998;82(12):2356–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dickie CI, Parent A, Griffin A, et al. Bone fractures following external beam radiotherapy and limb-preservation surgery for lower extremity soft tissue sarcoma: relationship to irradiated bone length, volume, tumor location and dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75(4):1119–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gortzak Y, Lockwood G, Mahendra A, et al. Prediction of pathologic fracture risk of the femur after combined modality treatment of soft tissue sarcoma of the thigh. Cancer. 2010;116(6):1553–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koff M, Shah P, Koch K, Potter H. Quantifying image distortion of orthopedic materials in magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38:610–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinberg EL, Rath E, Shlaifer A, Checkik O, Maman E, Salai M. Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK optima—a composite material biomechanical properties and wear/debris characteristics of CF-PEEK composites for orthopedic trauma implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;17:221–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007;28(32):4845–69.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baidya KP, Ramakrishna S, Rahman M. Quantitative radiographic analysis of fiber reinforced polymer composites. J Biomater Appl. 2001;15(3):279–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sofka CM, Potter HG, Adler RS, Pavlov H. Musculoskeletal imaging update: current applications of advanced imaging techniques to evaluate the early and long-term complications of patients with orthopedic implants. HSS J. 2006;2(1):73–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    White LM, Buckwalter KA. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2002;6(1):5–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buckwalter KA, Lin C, Ford JM. Managing postoperative artifacts on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2011;15(4):309–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Takeuchi N, Hiromichi M, Tomonori N, et al. The orientation of orthopaedic metallic devices relative to the frequency-encoding gradient affects susceptibility artifacts: an experiment using open MR imaging. Fukuoka Igaku Zasshi. 2011;102(5):185–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Pauly KB, Chen W, Gold GE, King KF. Magnetic resonance imaging near metal implants. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;32(4):773–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Collis PN, Clegg TE, Seligson D. The invisible nail: a technique report of treatment of a pathological humerus fracture with a radiolucent intramedullary nail. Injury. 2011;42(4):424–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tarallo L, Mugnai R, Adani R, Zambianchi F, Catani F. A new volar plate made of carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketon for distal radius fracture: analysis of 40 cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;15(4):277–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwartz A, Rebecca A, Smith A, et al. Risk factors for significant wound complications following wide resection of extremity soft tissue sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(11):3612–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tibbs MK. Wound healing following radiation therapy: a review. Radiother Oncol. 1997;42(2):99–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Mehren M, Benjamin RS, Bui MM, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma, version 2.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10(8):951–60.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa N. Zimel
    • 1
  • Sinchun Hwang
    • 2
  • Elyn R. Riedel
    • 3
  • John H. Healey
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Surgery Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations