Advertisement

Usefulness of slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) technique for reducing metal artifacts after total knee arthroplasty

  • Ahmed Jawhar
  • Miriam Reichert
  • Michael Kostrzewa
  • Mathias Nittka
  • Ulrike Attenberger
  • Henning Roehl
  • Frederic Bludau
Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the usefulness of a novel MRI sequence strategy in the assessment of the periprosthetic anatomical structures after primary total knee arthroplasty.

Methods

Two MR sequences were retrospectively compared for the imaging of 15 patients with implanted cruciate-retaining/fixed-bearing TKAs (DePuy, PFC Sigma): a slice encoding sequence for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) and a standard sequence. Images were acquired on a 1.5-T system. The degree of artifact reduction was assessed using several qualitative (Likert-type scale) (artifact size, distorsion, blur, image quality, periprosthetic bone, posterior cruciate ligament, lateral collateral ligament, medial collateral ligament, patella tendon, popliteal vessels) and quantitative (artifact volume, Insall–Salvati index, length of patella/tendon, prosthesis dimensions) parameters by blinded reads performed by four investigators. The SEMAC sequences were statistically compared with the standard sequence using Wilcoxon test. Additionally, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interobserver agreement was calculated.

Results

Higher levels of blurring were found with SEMAC compared to standard sequences (p < 0.001). All other qualitative parameters improved significantly with the application of SEMAC. In comparison with conventional sequences, the artifact volume was reduced by 59% utilizing SEMAC. Thus, the artifact reduction improved the precision of measurements such as Insall–Salvati index and length of patella/tendon (p < 0.001). The dimension of the tibial component (Ti alloy/polyethylene) revealed accurate values with both MRI sequences. A sufficient interobserver agreement among all readers was found with SEMAC, qualitatively ICC 0.9 (range 0.8–1) as well as quantitatively ICC 0.95 (range 0.92–0.98).

Conclusions

SEMAC effectively reduces artifacts caused by metallic implants after total knee arthroplasty relative to standard imaging. This allows for an improved assessment of periprosthetic anatomical structures. This might enable an improved detectability of postoperative complications in the future.

Level of evidence

Diagnostic Study Level III.

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty Ligaments Periprosthetic bone SEMAC Artifact reduction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Mathias Nittka is an employee of Siemens Healthcare GmbH. The remaining authors declare that there were no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Agten CA, Del Grande F, Fucentese SF, Blatter S, Pfirrmann CW, Sutter R (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty MRI: impact of slice-encoding for metal artefact correction MRI on image quality, findings and therapy decision. Eur Radiol 25:2184–2193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachschmidt TJ, Sutter R, Jakob PM, Pfirrmann CW, Nittka M (2015) Knee implant imaging at 3 Tesla using high-bandwidth radiofrequency pulses. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:1570–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Faris PM, Keating EM, Redelman R, Faris GW, Davis KE (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fritz J, Ahlawat S, Demehri S, Thawait GK, Raithel E, Gilson WD, Nittka M (2016) Compressed sensing SEMAC: 8-fold accelerated high resolution metal artifact reduction MRI of cobalt-chromium knee arthroplasty implants. Invest Radiol 51:666–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gustke KA, Golladay GJ, Roche MW, Elson LC, Anderson CR (2014) A new method for defining balance: promising short-term clinical outcomes of sensor-guided TKA. J Arthroplasty 29:955–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jawhar A, Sohoni S, Shah V, Scharf HP (2014) Alteration of the patellar height following total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Munk PL, MacKay A, Xiang QS, McGowen A (2001) Quantitative assessment of an MR technique for reducing metal artifact: application to spin-echo imaging in a phantom. Skeletal Radiol 30:398–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA (2009) SEMAC: slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 62:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Math KR, Zaidi SF, Petchprapa C, Harwin SF (2006) Imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 10:47–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meneghini RM, Ritter MA, Pierson JL, Meding JB, Berend ME, Faris PM (2006) The effect of the Insall–Salvati ratio on outcome after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:116–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mont MA, Serna FK, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS (1996) Exploration of radiographically normal total knee replacements for unexplained pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:216–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montgomery RL, Goodman SB, Csongradi J (1993) Late rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament after total knee replacement. Iowa Orthop J 13:167–170PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reichert M, Ai T, Morelli JN, Nittka M, Attenberger U, Runge VM (2015) Metal artefact reduction in MRI at both 1.5 and 3.0 T using slice encoding for metal artefact correction and view angle tilting. Br J Radiol 88:20140601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schnurr C, Eysel P, Konig DP (2012) Is the effect of a posterior cruciate ligament resection in total knee arthroplasty predictable? Int Orthop 36:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schulze A, Scharf HP (2013) Satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of 1990–1999 with 2000–2012. Orthopade 42:858–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seon JK, Song EK, Park SJ, Lee DS (2011) The use of navigation to obtain rectangular flexion and extension gaps during primary total knee arthroplasty and midterm clinical results. J Arthroplasty 26:582–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sofka CM, Potter HG, Figgie M, Laskin R (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 406:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sutter R, Hodek R, Fucentese SF, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW (2013) Total knee arthroplasty MRI featuring slice-encoding for metal artifact correction: reduction of artifacts for STIR and proton density-weighted sequences. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1315–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takahashi T, Wada Y, Yamamoto H (1997) Soft-tissue balancing with pressure distribution during total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 79:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weale AE, Murray DW, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE (1999) The length of the patellar tendon after unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:790–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zotti MG, Campbell DG, Woodman R (2012) Detection of periprosthetic osteolysis around total knee arthroplasties an in vitro study. J Arthroplasty 27:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed Jawhar
    • 1
  • Miriam Reichert
    • 2
  • Michael Kostrzewa
    • 4
  • Mathias Nittka
    • 3
  • Ulrike Attenberger
    • 2
  • Henning Roehl
    • 1
  • Frederic Bludau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty MannheimHeidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty MannheimHeidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Siemens Healthcare GmbHErlangenGermany
  4. 4.Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital and Mount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations