Cargando…

Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging

Artifacts in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to titanium implants in spine surgery are known to cause difficulties in follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and precise dose delivery in patients with spinal tumors. Carbon fiber–reinforced polyetheretherketon (CFRP)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krätzig, Theresa, Mende, Klaus C., Mohme, Malte, Kniep, Helge, Dreimann, Marc, Stangenberg, Martin, Westphal, Manfred, Gauer, Tobias, Eicker, Sven O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8338834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32930911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01384-2
_version_ 1783733474855747584
author Krätzig, Theresa
Mende, Klaus C.
Mohme, Malte
Kniep, Helge
Dreimann, Marc
Stangenberg, Martin
Westphal, Manfred
Gauer, Tobias
Eicker, Sven O.
author_facet Krätzig, Theresa
Mende, Klaus C.
Mohme, Malte
Kniep, Helge
Dreimann, Marc
Stangenberg, Martin
Westphal, Manfred
Gauer, Tobias
Eicker, Sven O.
author_sort Krätzig, Theresa
collection PubMed
description Artifacts in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to titanium implants in spine surgery are known to cause difficulties in follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and precise dose delivery in patients with spinal tumors. Carbon fiber–reinforced polyetheretherketon (CFRP) implants aim to reduce these artifacts. Our aim was to analyze susceptibility artifacts of these implants using a standardized in vitro model. Titanium and CFRP screw-rod phantoms were embedded in 3% agarose gel. Phantoms were scanned with Siemens Somatom AS Open and 3.0-T Siemens Skyra scanners. Regions of interest (ROIs) were plotted and analyzed for CT and MRI at clinically relevant localizations. CT voxel–based imaging analysis showed a significant difference of artifact intensity and central overlay between titanium and CFRP phantoms. For the virtual regions of the spinal canal, titanium implants (ti) presented − 30.7 HU vs. 33.4 HU mean for CFRP (p < 0.001), at the posterior margin of the vertebral body 68.9 HU (ti) vs. 59.8 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001) and at the anterior part of the vertebral body 201.2 HU (ti) vs. 70.4 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001), respectively. MRI data was only visually interpreted due to the low sample size and lack of an objective measuring system as Hounsfield units in CT. CT imaging of the phantom with typical implant configuration for thoracic stabilization could demonstrate a significant artifact reduction in CFRP implants compared with titanium implants for evaluation of index structures. Radiolucency with less artifacts provides a better interpretation of follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and more precise dose delivery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8338834
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83388342021-08-20 Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging Krätzig, Theresa Mende, Klaus C. Mohme, Malte Kniep, Helge Dreimann, Marc Stangenberg, Martin Westphal, Manfred Gauer, Tobias Eicker, Sven O. Neurosurg Rev Original Article Artifacts in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to titanium implants in spine surgery are known to cause difficulties in follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and precise dose delivery in patients with spinal tumors. Carbon fiber–reinforced polyetheretherketon (CFRP) implants aim to reduce these artifacts. Our aim was to analyze susceptibility artifacts of these implants using a standardized in vitro model. Titanium and CFRP screw-rod phantoms were embedded in 3% agarose gel. Phantoms were scanned with Siemens Somatom AS Open and 3.0-T Siemens Skyra scanners. Regions of interest (ROIs) were plotted and analyzed for CT and MRI at clinically relevant localizations. CT voxel–based imaging analysis showed a significant difference of artifact intensity and central overlay between titanium and CFRP phantoms. For the virtual regions of the spinal canal, titanium implants (ti) presented − 30.7 HU vs. 33.4 HU mean for CFRP (p < 0.001), at the posterior margin of the vertebral body 68.9 HU (ti) vs. 59.8 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001) and at the anterior part of the vertebral body 201.2 HU (ti) vs. 70.4 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001), respectively. MRI data was only visually interpreted due to the low sample size and lack of an objective measuring system as Hounsfield units in CT. CT imaging of the phantom with typical implant configuration for thoracic stabilization could demonstrate a significant artifact reduction in CFRP implants compared with titanium implants for evaluation of index structures. Radiolucency with less artifacts provides a better interpretation of follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and more precise dose delivery. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-09-15 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8338834/ /pubmed/32930911 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01384-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Krätzig, Theresa
Mende, Klaus C.
Mohme, Malte
Kniep, Helge
Dreimann, Marc
Stangenberg, Martin
Westphal, Manfred
Gauer, Tobias
Eicker, Sven O.
Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging
title Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging
title_full Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging
title_fullStr Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging
title_full_unstemmed Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging
title_short Carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging
title_sort carbon fiber–reinforced peek versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in ct and mr imaging
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8338834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32930911
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01384-2
work_keys_str_mv AT kratzigtheresa carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT mendeklausc carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT mohmemalte carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT kniephelge carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT dreimannmarc carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT stangenbergmartin carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT westphalmanfred carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT gauertobias carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging
AT eickersveno carbonfiberreinforcedpeekversustitaniumimplantsaninvitrocomparisonofsusceptibilityartifactsinctandmrimaging