Evaluation of Metal Artifacts from Stainless Steel and Titanium Alloy Orthopedic Screw in Computed Tomography Imaging

  • D. Yusob
  • J. Zukhi
  • A. A. Tajuddin
  • R. Zainon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Bioengineering book series (LNBE)


Artifacts arising from metallic implant had been a concern for Computed Tomography (CT) imaging in obtaining optimal image quality. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the metal artifacts severity from two different types of orthopedics screw and to optimise CT imaging parameters for metallic implants. A water-based abdomen phantom of diameter 32 cm (adult body size) was fabricated using polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) materials. The fabricated phantom was scanned with dual-energy CT at 80 and 140 kV, and single-energy CT at 120 kV. Two types of orthopedic screws; titanium alloy (grade 5) and stainless steel (grade 316L) was used in this study. A phantom with orthopedics metal screw was scanned at various pitch (0.35, 0.60, 1.20) and slice thickness of 1.0, 3.0, 5.0 mm. The tube current was applied automatically using tube current modulation. In this phantom study, the severity of stainless steel and titanium alloy was analysed. Results showed that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of titanium alloy was higher than the SNR of stainless steel. The optimal image quality of metallic implant was obtained at imaging parameters of pitch at 0.60 and 5.0 mm slice thickness. The use of optimum CT imaging parameters for orthopedic screw resulted in an improved CT image, as the SNR increases. This finding proves that optimum CT imaging parameters are able to reduce the metal artifacts severity on CT images. Therefore, it has potential for improving diagnostic performance in patients with severe metallic artifacts.


  1. 1.
    Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TRC (2011) Metal artifacts reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 21:1424–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 47:406–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson TR, Krauss B, Sedlmair M (2007) Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 17:1510–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu L, Li H, Mueller J, Kofler JM, Liu X, Primak AN, Fletcher JG, Guimaraes LS, Macedo T, McCollough CH (2009) Metal artifact reduction from reformatted projections for hip prostheses in multislice helical computed tomography: techniques and initial clinical results. Invest Radiol 44:691–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang X, Wang J, Xing L (2011) Metal artifact reduction in x-ray computed tomography (CT) by constrained optimization. Med Phys 38:701–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robert M, Michael G, David H (2004) Artifact analysis and reconstruction improvement in helical cardiac cone beam CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23(9):1150–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA, Song HT, Huh YM, Kim DH, Han SH, Suh J (2007) Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 27:791–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murakami Y, Kakeda S, Kamada K, Ohnari N, Nishimura J, Ogawa M, Otsubo K, Morishita Y, Korogi Y (2010) Patient safety 64-section multidetector 3D CT angiography: evaluation with a vascular phantom with superimposed bone skull structures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31(4):620–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Exhibit E, Zhang C, Nicolaou S (2016) Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT): review of key principles and utility in common clinical settings Electronic Presentation Online Syst ECR2016/C-1624Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yusob D, Zukhi J, Tajuddin AA, Zainon R (2017) Evaluation of efficacy of metal artefact reduction technique using contrast media in computed tomography. J Phys Conf Ser 851:012009Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 24:1679–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Primak AN, Mccollough CH, Michael R, Zhang RTRJ, Fletcher JG (2006) Relationship between noise, dose, and pitch in cardiac multi-detector row CT 1. Radiographics 26(6):1785–1795CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Yusob
    • 1
  • J. Zukhi
    • 1
  • A. A. Tajuddin
    • 2
  • R. Zainon
    • 1
  1. 1.Oncological and Radiological Sciences ClusterAdvanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains MalaysiaKepala BatasMalaysia
  2. 2.School of PhysicsUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMindenMalaysia

Personalised recommendations