Cargando…
Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography
When visualizing biological activity at nonunion sites by the radioisotopes, gamma rays are more attenuated if metal implants are placed in the bone. However, the effects of various implant types and their placement on gamma ray attenuation in quantitative evaluation remain unknown. To elucidate the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9693383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36431209 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226732 |
_version_ | 1784837527542169600 |
---|---|
author | Oe, Keisuke Zeng, Feibi Niikura, Takahiro Fukui, Tomoaki Sawauchi, Kenichi Matsumoto, Tomoyuki Nogami, Munenobu Murakami, Takamichi Kuroda, Ryosuke |
author_facet | Oe, Keisuke Zeng, Feibi Niikura, Takahiro Fukui, Tomoaki Sawauchi, Kenichi Matsumoto, Tomoyuki Nogami, Munenobu Murakami, Takamichi Kuroda, Ryosuke |
author_sort | Oe, Keisuke |
collection | PubMed |
description | When visualizing biological activity at nonunion sites by the radioisotopes, gamma rays are more attenuated if metal implants are placed in the bone. However, the effects of various implant types and their placement on gamma ray attenuation in quantitative evaluation remain unknown. To elucidate these effects, we created a phantom that simulated the nonunion of the femur in this study. The count of gamma rays was measured by single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) while considering CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC), metal implant placement, type (intramedullary nail or plate), and position. The count differed significantly with and without CTAC and with and without implants (both types) under CTAC. Significantly different counts were observed between the intramedullary nail and plate placed contralaterally to the lesion (i.e., non-lesion side). No significant difference was observed between the intramedullary nail and plate on the lesion side or between plates on the non-lesion and lesion sides. The measured standardized uptake value (SUV) was closer to the true SUV with CTAC than without. Moreover, the count was higher with implants than without. However, even with implants, it was lower than the actual count, indicating the absence of overcorrection. Implant type and position do not seem to influence the count. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9693383 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96933832022-11-26 Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography Oe, Keisuke Zeng, Feibi Niikura, Takahiro Fukui, Tomoaki Sawauchi, Kenichi Matsumoto, Tomoyuki Nogami, Munenobu Murakami, Takamichi Kuroda, Ryosuke J Clin Med Article When visualizing biological activity at nonunion sites by the radioisotopes, gamma rays are more attenuated if metal implants are placed in the bone. However, the effects of various implant types and their placement on gamma ray attenuation in quantitative evaluation remain unknown. To elucidate these effects, we created a phantom that simulated the nonunion of the femur in this study. The count of gamma rays was measured by single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) while considering CT-based attenuation correction (CTAC), metal implant placement, type (intramedullary nail or plate), and position. The count differed significantly with and without CTAC and with and without implants (both types) under CTAC. Significantly different counts were observed between the intramedullary nail and plate placed contralaterally to the lesion (i.e., non-lesion side). No significant difference was observed between the intramedullary nail and plate on the lesion side or between plates on the non-lesion and lesion sides. The measured standardized uptake value (SUV) was closer to the true SUV with CTAC than without. Moreover, the count was higher with implants than without. However, even with implants, it was lower than the actual count, indicating the absence of overcorrection. Implant type and position do not seem to influence the count. MDPI 2022-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9693383/ /pubmed/36431209 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226732 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Oe, Keisuke Zeng, Feibi Niikura, Takahiro Fukui, Tomoaki Sawauchi, Kenichi Matsumoto, Tomoyuki Nogami, Munenobu Murakami, Takamichi Kuroda, Ryosuke Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography |
title | Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography |
title_full | Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography |
title_fullStr | Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography |
title_short | Influence of Metal Implants on Quantitative Evaluation of Bone Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography/Computed Tomography |
title_sort | influence of metal implants on quantitative evaluation of bone single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9693383/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36431209 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11226732 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT oekeisuke influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT zengfeibi influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT niikuratakahiro influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT fukuitomoaki influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT sawauchikenichi influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT matsumototomoyuki influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT nogamimunenobu influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT murakamitakamichi influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography AT kurodaryosuke influenceofmetalimplantsonquantitativeevaluationofbonesinglephotonemissioncomputedtomographycomputedtomography |