Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 123, Issue 8, pp 593–600 | Cite as

Application and advantages of monoenergetic reconstruction images for the reduction of metallic artifacts using dual-energy CT in knee and hip prostheses

  • Nicola Magarelli
  • Vincenzo De Santis
  • Giammaria Marziali
  • Amerigo Menghi
  • Aaron Burrofato
  • Luigi Pedone
  • Dario Del Prete
  • Roberto Iezzi
  • Chiara de Waure
  • Marianna D’andrea
  • Antonio Leone
  • Cesare Colosimo
COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY
  • 138 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

The study aimed to assess image quality when using dual-energy CT (DECT) to reduce metal artifacts in subjects with knee and hip prostheses.

Methods

Twenty-two knee and 10 hip prostheses were examined in 31 patients using a DECT protocol (tube voltages 100 and 140 kVp). Monoenergetic reconstructions were extrapolated at 64, 69, 88, 105, 110, 120, 140, 170, and 190 kilo-electron volts (keV) and the optimal energy was manually selected. The B60–140 and Fast DE reconstructions were made by CT. The image quality and diagnostic value were subjectively and objectively determined. Double-blind qualitative assessment was performed by two radiologists using a Likert scale. For quantitative analysis, a circular region of interest (ROI) was placed by a third radiologist within the most evident streak artifacts on every image. Another ROI was placed in surrounding tissues without artifacts as a reference.

Results

The inter-reader agreement for the qualitative assessment was nearly 100%. The best overall image quality (37.8% rated “excellent”) was the Fast DE Siemens reconstruction, followed by B60–140 and Opt KeV (20.5 and 10.2% rated excellent). On the other hand, DECT images at 64, 69 and 88 keV had the worse scores. The number of artifacts was significantly different between monoenergetic images. Nevertheless, because of the high number of pairwise comparisons, no differences were found in the post hoc analysis except for a trend toward statistical significance when comparing the 170 and 64 keV doses.

Conclusions

DECT with specific post-processing may reduce metal artifacts and significantly enhance the image quality and diagnostic value when evaluating metallic implants.

Keywords

Hip metallic prostheses Knee metallic prostheses DECT Artifact Beam hardening Photon beam 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the appropriate ethical committee. All authors have approved the manuscript and have significantly contributed to it. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA et al (2007) Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 27:791–803CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    White LM, Buckwalter KA (2002) Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:5–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 24:1679–1691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moon SG, Hong SH, Choi J-Y, Jun WS, Kang H-G, Kim H-S et al (2008) Metal artifact reduction by the alteration of technical factors in multidetector computed tomography: a 3-dimensional quantitative assessment. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32(4):630–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perrella A, Lopes PML, Rocha RG, Fenyo-Pereira M, Cavalcanti MGP (2010) Influence of dental metallic artifact from multislice CT in the assessment of simulated mandibular lesions. J Appl Oral Sci. 18(2):149–154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vande Berg B, Malghem J, Maldague B, Lecouvet F (2006) Multi-detector CT imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient with metal hardware. Eur J Radiol 60(3):470–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Link TM, Berning W, Scherf S, Joosten U, Joist A, Engelke K et al (2000) CT of metal implants: reduction of artifacts using an extended CT scale technique. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24(1):165–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishman EK, Magid D, Robertson DD, Brooker AF, Weiss P, Siegelman SS (1986) Metallic hip implants: CT with multiplanar reconstruction. Radiology 160(3):675–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stradiotti P, Curti A, Castellazzi G, Zerbi A (2009) Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: state of the art. Eur Spine J 18(Suppl 1):102–108CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH (2012) Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199(5 Suppl):S9–S15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrara F, Cipriani A, Rapisarda S et al (2015) Assessment of implant position after total knee arthroplasty by dual-energy computed tomography. Acta Radiol 57(5):612–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filograna L, Magarelli N, Leone A et al (2016) Performances of low-dose dual-energy CT in reducing artifacts from implanted metallic orthopedic devices. Skeletal Radiol 45(7):937–947CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filograna L, Magarelli N, Leone A et al (2015) Value of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) for artefact reduction from metallic orthopedic implants in post-mortem studies. Skeletal Radiol 44(9):1287–1294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H et al (2010) Characterization of urinary stones with dual-energy CT: improved differentiation using a tin filter. Invest Radiol 45:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR (2011) Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. EurRadiol 21:1424Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang Q, Bamberg F, Reiser MF, Johnson TR (2012) Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Invest Radiol 47(7):406–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou C, Zhao YE, Luo S et al (2011) Monoenergetic imaging of dual-energy CT reduces artifacts from implanted metal orthopedic devices in patients with factures. AcadRadiol 18:1252–1257Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Osterhoff G et al (2012) Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion Implants from various vendors and different spine levels. EurRadiol 22:2357–2364Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin XZ, Miao F, Li JY, Dong HP, Shen Y, Chen KM (2011) High-definition CT Gemstone spectral imaging of the brain: initial results of selecting optimal monochromatic image for beam-hardening artifacts and image noise reduction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:294–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Magarelli
    • 1
  • Vincenzo De Santis
    • 2
  • Giammaria Marziali
    • 1
  • Amerigo Menghi
    • 2
  • Aaron Burrofato
    • 2
  • Luigi Pedone
    • 1
  • Dario Del Prete
    • 1
  • Roberto Iezzi
    • 1
  • Chiara de Waure
    • 3
  • Marianna D’andrea
    • 3
  • Antonio Leone
    • 1
  • Cesare Colosimo
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Radiology, Catholic University School of MedicineFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. GemelliRomeItaly
  2. 2.Institute of Clinical Orthopedic, Catholic University School of MedicineFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. GemelliRomeItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Hygiene, Catholic University School of MedicineFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. GemelliRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations