Comparative study of fat-suppression techniques for hip arthroplasty MR imaging
- 662 Downloads
The goal of this study was to evaluate different fat-suppressed fluid-sensitive sequences in association with different metal artifacts reduction techniques (MARS) to determine which combination allows better fat suppression around metallic hip implants.
An experimental study using an MRI fat–water phantom quantitatively evaluated contrast shift induced by metallic hip implant for different fat-suppression techniques and MARS. Then a clinical study with patients addressed to MRI unit for painful hip prosthesis compared these techniques in terms of fat suppression quality and diagnosis confidence.
Among sequences without MARS, both T2 Dixon and short tau inversion recuperation (STIR) had significantly lower contrast shift (p < 0.05), Dixon offering the best fat suppression. Adding MARS (view-angle tilting or slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC)) to STIR gave better results than Dixon alone, and also better than SPAIR and fat saturation with MARS (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between STIR with view-angle tilting and STIR with SEMAC in terms of fat suppression quality.
STIR sequence is the preferred fluid-sensitive MR sequence in patients with metal implant. In combination with MARS (view-angle tilting or SEMAC), STIR appears to be the best option for high-quality fat suppression.
KeywordsMRI Hip Prosthesis Fat suppression Metal artifact reduction sequences
Short tau inversion recovery
Slice-encoding for metal artifact correction
Spectral attenuated inversion recovery
(Spectrally selective) fat suppression
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 15.Jungmann PM, Ganter C, Schaeffeler CJ, et al. View-angle tilting and slice-encoding metal artifact correction for artifact reduction in MRI: experimental sequence optimization for orthopaedic tumor endoprostheses and clinical application. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Oppelt A (2011) Imaging systems for medical diagnostics: fundamentals, technical solutions and applications for systems applying ionizing radiation, nuclear magnetic resonance and ultrasound. John Wiley & Sons (p.214).Google Scholar
- 22.Hess AT, Robson MD (2016) Hexagonal gradient scheme with RF spoiling improves spoiling performance for high-flip-angle fast gradient echo imaging. Magn Reson Med 0:1–7.Google Scholar