Abstract
The projectional nature of radiogram limits its amount of information about the instrumented spine. MRI and CT imaging can be more helpful, using cross-sectional view. However, the presence of metal-related artifacts at both conventional CT and MRI imaging can obscure relevant anatomy and disease. We reviewed the literature about overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopaedic implants at high-field strength MRI imaging and multi-detector CT. The evolution of multichannel CT has made available new techniques that can help minimizing the severe beam-hardening artifacts. The presence of artifacts at CT from metal hardware is related to image reconstruction algorithm (filter), tube current (in mA), X-ray kilovolt peak, pitch, hardware composition, geometry (shape), and location. MRI imaging has been used safely in patients with orthopaedic metallic implants because most of these implants do not have ferromagnetic properties and have been fixed into position. However, on MRI imaging metallic implants may produce geometric distortion, the so-called susceptibility artifact. In conclusion, although 140 kV and high milliamperage second exposures are recommended for imaging patients with hardware, caution should always be exercised, particularly in children, young adults, and patients undergoing multiple examinations. MRI artifacts can be minimized by positioning optimally and correctly the examined anatomy part with metallic implants in the magnet and by choosing fast spin-echo sequences, and in some cases also STIR sequences, with an anterior to posterior frequency-encoding direction and the smallest voxel size.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
White LM, Buckwalter KA (2002) Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:5–17
Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. RadioGraphics 24:1679–1691
Yazdi M, Gingras L, Beaulieu L (2005) An adaptive approach to metal artifact reduction in helical computed tomography for radiation therapy treatment planning: experimental and clinical studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 62:1224–1231
Lee MF, Kim S, Lee SA et al (2007) Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength mr imaging and multidetector CT. RadioGraphics 27:791–803
Douglas-Akinwande AC, Buckwalter KA, Rydberg J et al (2006) Multichannel CT: evaluating the spine in postoperative patients with orthopaedic hardware. RadioGraphics 26:S97–S110
Robertson DD, Weiss PJ, Fishman EK et al (1988) Evaluation of CT techniques for reducing artifacts in the presence of metallic orthopaedic implants. J Comput Assist Tomogr 12:236–241
White LM, Buckwalter KA (2002) Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:5–17
Robertson DD, Magid D, Poss R, Fishman EK et al (1989) Enhanced computed tomographic techniques for the evaluation of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 4:271–276
Haramati N, Staron RB, Mazel-Sperling K et al (1994) CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:429–434
Wang JC, Yu WD, Sandhu HS et al (1998) A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation. Spine 23:1684–1688
Ohashi K, El-Khoury GY, Bennett DL et al (2005) Orthopedic hardware complication diagnosed with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 237:570–577
Lorenzen M, Wedegartner U, Weber C et al (2005) Clinical relevance of multislice CT of the spine after osteosynthesis. Rofo 177(11):1540–1544
Schroder RJ, Noor J, Pflugmacher R et al (2004) Short-term CT findings after osteosynthesis of fractures of the vertebral spine. Rofo 176(5):694–703
Viano AM, Gronemeyer SA, Haliloglu M et al (2000) Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging 18:287–295
Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R (1985) Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 3:329–343
Harris CA, White LM (2006) Metal artifact reduction in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Orthop Clin N Am 37:349–359
Hassfeld S (2005) Artefacts in magnetic resonance imaging caused by dental material. MAGMA 18:103–111
Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH et al (1998) Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1207–1213
Ganapathi M, Joseph J, Savage R et al (2002) MRI susceptibility artefacts related to scaphoid screws: effect of screw type, screw orientation and imaging parameters. J Hand Surg Br 27:165–170
Guermazi A, Miaux Y, Zaim S et al (2003) Metallic artefacts in MR imaging: effects of main field orientation and strength. Clin Radiol 58:322–328
Mueller PR, Stark DD, Simeone JF et al (1986) MR guided aspiration biopsy: needle design and clinical trials. Radiology 161:605–609
Wendt RE, Wicott MR, Nitz W et al (1988) MR imaging of susceptibility-induced magnetic field inhomogeneities. Radiology 168:837–841
White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M et al (2000) Complication of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging initial experience. Radiology 215:254–262
Port JD, Pomper MG (2000) Quantification and minimization of magnetic susceptibility artifacts on GRE images. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23:958–964
Peterslige CA, Lewin JS, Duerk JL et al (1996) Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:1213–1218
Bakker CJG, Bhagwandien R, Moerland MA et al (1993) Susceptibility artifacts in 2DFT spin-echo imaging: the cylinder model revisited. Magn Reson Imaging 11:539–548
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
Frazzini VI, Kagetsu Nk, Johnson CE et al (1997) Internally stabilized spine: optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology 204:268–272
Tartaglino LM, Flanders AE, Vitinski S et al (1994) Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 190:565–569
Hilfiker P, Zanetti M, Debatin JF et al (1995) Fast spinecho inversion-recovery imaging versus fast spin echo imaging in bone marrow abnormalities. Invest Radiol 30:110–114
Czerny C, Krestan C, Imhof H et al (1999) Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. Top Magn Reson Imag 10:214–220
Mitchell DG, Cohen MS (2000) Transverse magnetization and T2 contrast. In: Mitchell DG, Cohen MS (eds) MRI principles, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 35–47
Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ et al (2000) Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics 20:699–712
Chang SD, Lee MJ, Munk PL et al (2001) MRI of spinal hardware: comparison of conventional T1-weighted sequence with a new metal artifact reduction sequence. Skeletal Radiol 20:213–218
Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Munk PL et al (2001) Quantitative assessment of an MR technique for reducing metal artifact: application to spin-echo imaging in a phantom. Skeletal Radiol 30:398–401
Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Bryan J et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1947–1954
Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH et al (1998) Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1207–1213
Conflict of interest statement
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stradiotti, P., Curti, A., Castellazzi, G. et al. Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: state of the art. Eur Spine J 18 (Suppl 1), 102–108 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0998-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0998-5