Cargando…

Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers

BACKGROUND: CT artifacts induced by orthopedic implants can limit image quality and diagnostic yield. As a number of different strategies to reduce artifact extent exist, the aim of this study was to systematically compare ex vivo the impact of different CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) strategies...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huber, Florian A., Sprengel, Kai, Müller, Lydia, Graf, Laura C., Osterhoff, Georg, Guggenberger, Roman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-021-00554-y
_version_ 1783651622118752256
author Huber, Florian A.
Sprengel, Kai
Müller, Lydia
Graf, Laura C.
Osterhoff, Georg
Guggenberger, Roman
author_facet Huber, Florian A.
Sprengel, Kai
Müller, Lydia
Graf, Laura C.
Osterhoff, Georg
Guggenberger, Roman
author_sort Huber, Florian A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: CT artifacts induced by orthopedic implants can limit image quality and diagnostic yield. As a number of different strategies to reduce artifact extent exist, the aim of this study was to systematically compare ex vivo the impact of different CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) strategies on spine implants made of either standard titanium or carbon-fiber-reinforced-polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK). METHODS: Spine surgeons fluoroscopically-guided prepared six sheep spine cadavers with pedicle screws and rods of either titanium or CFR-PEEK. Samples were subjected to single- and dual-energy (DE) CT-imaging. Different tube voltages (80, DE mixed, 120 and tin-filtered 150 kVp) at comparable radiation dose and iterative reconstruction versus monoenergetic extrapolation (ME) techniques were compared. Also, the influence of image reconstruction kernels (soft vs. bone tissue) was investigated. Qualitative (Likert scores) and quantitative parameters (attenuation changes induced by implant artifact, implant diameter and image noise) were evaluated by two independent radiologists. Artifact degree of different MAR-strategies and implant materials were compared by multiple ANOVA analysis. RESULTS: CFR-PEEK implants induced markedly less artifacts than standard titanium implants (p < .001). This effect was substantially larger than any other tested MAR technique. Reconstruction algorithms had small impact in CFR-PEEK implants and differed significantly in MAR efficiency (p < .001) with best MAR performance for DECT ME 130 keV (bone kernel). Significant differences in image noise between reconstruction kernels were seen (p < .001) with minor impact on artifact degree. CONCLUSIONS: CFR-PEEK spine implants induce significantly less artifacts than standard titanium compositions with higher MAR efficiency than any alternate scanning or image reconstruction strategy. DECT ME 130 keV image reconstructions showed least metal artifacts. Reconstruction kernels primarily modulate image noise with minor impact on artifact degree.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7885519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78855192021-02-17 Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers Huber, Florian A. Sprengel, Kai Müller, Lydia Graf, Laura C. Osterhoff, Georg Guggenberger, Roman BMC Med Imaging Research Article BACKGROUND: CT artifacts induced by orthopedic implants can limit image quality and diagnostic yield. As a number of different strategies to reduce artifact extent exist, the aim of this study was to systematically compare ex vivo the impact of different CT metal artifact reduction (MAR) strategies on spine implants made of either standard titanium or carbon-fiber-reinforced-polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK). METHODS: Spine surgeons fluoroscopically-guided prepared six sheep spine cadavers with pedicle screws and rods of either titanium or CFR-PEEK. Samples were subjected to single- and dual-energy (DE) CT-imaging. Different tube voltages (80, DE mixed, 120 and tin-filtered 150 kVp) at comparable radiation dose and iterative reconstruction versus monoenergetic extrapolation (ME) techniques were compared. Also, the influence of image reconstruction kernels (soft vs. bone tissue) was investigated. Qualitative (Likert scores) and quantitative parameters (attenuation changes induced by implant artifact, implant diameter and image noise) were evaluated by two independent radiologists. Artifact degree of different MAR-strategies and implant materials were compared by multiple ANOVA analysis. RESULTS: CFR-PEEK implants induced markedly less artifacts than standard titanium implants (p < .001). This effect was substantially larger than any other tested MAR technique. Reconstruction algorithms had small impact in CFR-PEEK implants and differed significantly in MAR efficiency (p < .001) with best MAR performance for DECT ME 130 keV (bone kernel). Significant differences in image noise between reconstruction kernels were seen (p < .001) with minor impact on artifact degree. CONCLUSIONS: CFR-PEEK spine implants induce significantly less artifacts than standard titanium compositions with higher MAR efficiency than any alternate scanning or image reconstruction strategy. DECT ME 130 keV image reconstructions showed least metal artifacts. Reconstruction kernels primarily modulate image noise with minor impact on artifact degree. BioMed Central 2021-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7885519/ /pubmed/33588781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-021-00554-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Huber, Florian A.
Sprengel, Kai
Müller, Lydia
Graf, Laura C.
Osterhoff, Georg
Guggenberger, Roman
Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
title Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
title_full Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
title_fullStr Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
title_short Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
title_sort comparison of different ct metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588781
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-021-00554-y
work_keys_str_mv AT huberfloriana comparisonofdifferentctmetalartifactreductionstrategiesforstandardtitaniumandcarbonfiberreinforcedpolymerimplantsinsheepcadavers
AT sprengelkai comparisonofdifferentctmetalartifactreductionstrategiesforstandardtitaniumandcarbonfiberreinforcedpolymerimplantsinsheepcadavers
AT mullerlydia comparisonofdifferentctmetalartifactreductionstrategiesforstandardtitaniumandcarbonfiberreinforcedpolymerimplantsinsheepcadavers
AT graflaurac comparisonofdifferentctmetalartifactreductionstrategiesforstandardtitaniumandcarbonfiberreinforcedpolymerimplantsinsheepcadavers
AT osterhoffgeorg comparisonofdifferentctmetalartifactreductionstrategiesforstandardtitaniumandcarbonfiberreinforcedpolymerimplantsinsheepcadavers
AT guggenbergerroman comparisonofdifferentctmetalartifactreductionstrategiesforstandardtitaniumandcarbonfiberreinforcedpolymerimplantsinsheepcadavers