Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implant detectibility of intervertebral disc spacers in post fusion MRI: evaluation of the MRI scan quality by using a scoring system—an in vitro study

  • Diagnostic Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Intervertebral spacers for anterior spine fusion are made of different materials, such as titanium and cobalt chromium alloys and carbon fiber-reinforced polymers. Implant-related susceptibility artifacts can decrease the quality of MRI scans. The aim of this cadaveric study was to demonstrate the extent that implant-related MRI artifacting affects the postfusion differentiation of determined regions of interest (ROIs).

Methods

In six cadaveric porcine spines, we evaluated the postimplantation MRI scans of a titanium, cobalt-chromium and carbon spacer that differed in shape and surface qualities. A spacer made of human cortical bone was used as a control. A defined evaluation unit was divided into ROIs to characterize the spinal canal as well as the intervertebral disc space. Considering 15 different MRI sequences read independently by an interobserver-validated team of specialists the artifact-affected image quality of the median MRI slice was rated on a score of 0–3. A maximum score of 18 points (100%) for the determined ROIs was possible.

Results

Turbo spin echo sequences produced the best scores for all spacers and the control. Only the control achieved a score of 100%. For the determined ROI maximum scores for the cobalt-chromium, titanium and carbon spacers were 24%, 32% and 84%, respectively.

Conclusion

By using favored T1 TSE sequences the carbon spacer showed a clear advantage in postfusion spinal imaging. Independent of artifact dimensions, the scoring system used allowed us to create an implant-related ranking of MRI scan quality in reference to the bone control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van Goethem JW, Parizel PM, Jinkins JR (2002) Review article: MRI of the postoperative lumbar spine. Neuroradiology 44:723–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fellner C, Behr M, Fellner F, Held P, Handel G, Feuerbach S (1997) Artifacts in MR imaging of the temporomandibular joint caused by dental alloys: a phantom model study at T1.5. Rofo 166:421–428

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fritzsche S, Thull R, Haase A (1994) Reduction of artifacts in magnetic resonance images by using optimized materials for diagnostic devices and implants. Biomed Tech (Berl) 39:42–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schenck JF (1996) The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 23:815–850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Herold T, Caro WC, Heers G, Perlick L, Grifka J, Feuerbach S, Nitz W, Lenhart M (2004) Influence of sequence type on the extent of the susceptibility artifact in MRI – a shoulder specimen study after suture anchor repair. Rofo 176:1296–1301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD (1993) A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine 18:2106–2107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goulet JA, Senunas LE, DeSilva GL, Greenfield ML (1997) Autogenous iliac crest bone graft. Complications and functional assessment. Clin Orthop 339:76–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Summers BN, Eisenstein SM (1989) Donor site pain from the ilium. A complication of lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:677–680

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bader R, Steinhauser E, Rechl H, Siebels W, Mittelmeier W, Gradinger R (2003) Carbon fiber-reinforced plastics as implant materials. Orthopade 32:32–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Weiner BK, Fraser RD (1998) Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine 23:634–640

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Petersilge CA, Lewin JS, Duerk JL, Yoo JU, Ghaneyem AJ (1996) Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1213–1218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Vaccaro AR, Chesnut RM, Scuderi G, Healy JF, Massie JB, Garfin SR (1994) Metallic spinal artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging. Spine 19:1237–1242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang JC, Yu WD, Sandhu HS, Tam V, Delamarter RB (1998) A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation. Spine 23:1684–1688

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Malik AS, Boyko O, Atkar N, Young WF (2001) A comparative study of MR imaging profile of titanium pedicle screws. Acta Radiol 42:291–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ortiz O, Pait TG, McAllister P, Sauter K (1996) Postoperative MRI with titanium implants of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurgery 38:741–745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rupp R, Ebraheim NA, Savolaine ER, Jackson WT (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the spine with metal implants. General safety and superior imaging with titanium. Spine 18:379–385

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ernstberger T, Heidrich G, Buchhorn G (2006) Post implantation MRI with cylindric and cubic intervertebral test implants: evaluation of implant shape, material and volume in MRI artifacting – an in vitro study. Spine J (in press)

  18. Rudisch A, Kremser C, Peer S, Kathrein A, Judmaier W, Daniaux H (1998) Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and implant sequences. Spine 23:692–699

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomsen M, Schneider U, Breusch SJ, Hansmann J, Freund M (2001) Artefacts and ferromagnetism dependent on different metal alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. An experimental study. Orthopade 30:540–544

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany

    Thorsten Ernstberger & Wolfgang Schultz

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Gabert Heidrich & Eckhardt Grabbe

Authors
  1. Thorsten Ernstberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabert Heidrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolfgang Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eckhardt Grabbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thorsten Ernstberger.

Additional information

The first two authors contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ernstberger, T., Heidrich, G., Schultz, W. et al. Implant detectibility of intervertebral disc spacers in post fusion MRI: evaluation of the MRI scan quality by using a scoring system—an in vitro study. Neuroradiology 49, 103–109 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-006-0161-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-006-0161-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation