Cargando…

Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom

BACKGROUND: Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images. OBJECTIVE: This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spina...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chou, Ryan, Chi, Hung-Yi, Lin, Yi-Hung, Ying, Liu-Kuo, Chao, Yu-Ju, Lin, Cheng-Hsun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32364160
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/THC-209028
_version_ 1783560717032488960
author Chou, Ryan
Chi, Hung-Yi
Lin, Yi-Hung
Ying, Liu-Kuo
Chao, Yu-Ju
Lin, Cheng-Hsun
author_facet Chou, Ryan
Chi, Hung-Yi
Lin, Yi-Hung
Ying, Liu-Kuo
Chao, Yu-Ju
Lin, Cheng-Hsun
author_sort Chou, Ryan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images. OBJECTIVE: This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spinal implant, and dental filling) with a self-made acrylic phantom. METHODS: A cylindrical phantom was made from acrylic with a groove in the middle, and then three types of metal implants were placed in the groove. The phantom was scanned by four CT scanners and four commercialized MAR techniques were used to analyze the images. The techniques used were single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR, Canon), smart metal artifact reduction software (Smart-MAR, GE), iterative metal artifact reduction (IMAR, Siemens), and metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (OMAR, Philips). Quantitative analysis methods included objective and subjective analysis. RESULTS: The expected value of SEMAR, Smart-MAR, IMAR, and OMAR were 36.6, 37.8, 5.0, and 2.3, respectively. SEMAR and Smart-MAR achieved optimal results. CONCLUSION: This study successfully evaluated the effects of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants in a phantom. All MAR techniques effectively reduced metal artifacts, but the effect was not significant with dental fillings due to high-density material.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7369061
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73690612020-07-22 Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom Chou, Ryan Chi, Hung-Yi Lin, Yi-Hung Ying, Liu-Kuo Chao, Yu-Ju Lin, Cheng-Hsun Technol Health Care Research Article BACKGROUND: Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images. OBJECTIVE: This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spinal implant, and dental filling) with a self-made acrylic phantom. METHODS: A cylindrical phantom was made from acrylic with a groove in the middle, and then three types of metal implants were placed in the groove. The phantom was scanned by four CT scanners and four commercialized MAR techniques were used to analyze the images. The techniques used were single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR, Canon), smart metal artifact reduction software (Smart-MAR, GE), iterative metal artifact reduction (IMAR, Siemens), and metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (OMAR, Philips). Quantitative analysis methods included objective and subjective analysis. RESULTS: The expected value of SEMAR, Smart-MAR, IMAR, and OMAR were 36.6, 37.8, 5.0, and 2.3, respectively. SEMAR and Smart-MAR achieved optimal results. CONCLUSION: This study successfully evaluated the effects of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants in a phantom. All MAR techniques effectively reduced metal artifacts, but the effect was not significant with dental fillings due to high-density material. IOS Press 2020-06-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7369061/ /pubmed/32364160 http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/THC-209028 Text en © 2020 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is published online with Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
spellingShingle Research Article
Chou, Ryan
Chi, Hung-Yi
Lin, Yi-Hung
Ying, Liu-Kuo
Chao, Yu-Ju
Lin, Cheng-Hsun
Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
title Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
title_full Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
title_fullStr Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
title_short Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
title_sort comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer’s metal artifact reduction techniques for ct imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369061/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32364160
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/THC-209028
work_keys_str_mv AT chouryan comparisonofquantitativemeasurementsoffourmanufacturersmetalartifactreductiontechniquesforctimagingwithaselfmadeacrylicphantom
AT chihungyi comparisonofquantitativemeasurementsoffourmanufacturersmetalartifactreductiontechniquesforctimagingwithaselfmadeacrylicphantom
AT linyihung comparisonofquantitativemeasurementsoffourmanufacturersmetalartifactreductiontechniquesforctimagingwithaselfmadeacrylicphantom
AT yingliukuo comparisonofquantitativemeasurementsoffourmanufacturersmetalartifactreductiontechniquesforctimagingwithaselfmadeacrylicphantom
AT chaoyuju comparisonofquantitativemeasurementsoffourmanufacturersmetalartifactreductiontechniquesforctimagingwithaselfmadeacrylicphantom
AT linchenghsun comparisonofquantitativemeasurementsoffourmanufacturersmetalartifactreductiontechniquesforctimagingwithaselfmadeacrylicphantom