Cargando…

Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?

PURPOSE: To assess image quality and metal artifact reduction in split-filter dual-energy CT (sfDECT) of the abdomen with hip or spinal implants using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) and iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm (iMAR). METHODS: 102 portal-venous abdominal sfDECTs of patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wichtmann, Hildegard M., Laukamp, Kai R., Manneck, Sebastian, Appelt, Konrad, Stieltjes, Bram, Boll, Daniel T., Benz, Matthias R., Obmann, Markus M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9849167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36180598
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03682-3
_version_ 1784871883818139648
author Wichtmann, Hildegard M.
Laukamp, Kai R.
Manneck, Sebastian
Appelt, Konrad
Stieltjes, Bram
Boll, Daniel T.
Benz, Matthias R.
Obmann, Markus M.
author_facet Wichtmann, Hildegard M.
Laukamp, Kai R.
Manneck, Sebastian
Appelt, Konrad
Stieltjes, Bram
Boll, Daniel T.
Benz, Matthias R.
Obmann, Markus M.
author_sort Wichtmann, Hildegard M.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess image quality and metal artifact reduction in split-filter dual-energy CT (sfDECT) of the abdomen with hip or spinal implants using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) and iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm (iMAR). METHODS: 102 portal-venous abdominal sfDECTs of patients with hip (n = 71) or spinal implants (n = 31) were included in this study. Images were reconstructed as 120kVp-equivalent images (Mixed) and VMI (40–190 keV), with and without iMAR. Quantitative artifact and image noise was measured using 12 different ROIs. Subjective image quality was rated by two readers using a five-point Likert-scale in six categories, including overall image quality and vascular contrast. RESULTS: Lowest quantitative artifact in both hip and spinal implants was measured in VMI(190keV-iMAR). However, it was not significantly lower than in Mixed(iMAR) (for all ROIs, p = 1.00), which were rated best for overall image quality (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00–2.00], spine: 3.00 [IQR:2.00–3.00]). VMI(50keV-iMAR) was rated best for vascular contrast (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00–2.00], spine: 2.00 [IQR: 1.00–2.00]), which was significantly better than Mixed (both, p < 0.001). VMI(50keV-iMAR) provided superior overall image quality compared to Mixed for hip (1.00 vs 2.00, p < 0.001) and similar diagnostic image quality for spinal implants (2.00 vs 2.00, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: For abdominal sfDECT with hip or spinal implants Mixed(iMAR) images should be used. High keV VMI do not further improve image quality. IMAR allows the use of low keV images (VMI(50keV)) to improve vascular contrast, compared to Mixed images. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00261-022-03682-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9849167
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98491672023-01-20 Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction? Wichtmann, Hildegard M. Laukamp, Kai R. Manneck, Sebastian Appelt, Konrad Stieltjes, Bram Boll, Daniel T. Benz, Matthias R. Obmann, Markus M. Abdom Radiol (NY) Technical PURPOSE: To assess image quality and metal artifact reduction in split-filter dual-energy CT (sfDECT) of the abdomen with hip or spinal implants using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) and iterative metal artifact reduction algorithm (iMAR). METHODS: 102 portal-venous abdominal sfDECTs of patients with hip (n = 71) or spinal implants (n = 31) were included in this study. Images were reconstructed as 120kVp-equivalent images (Mixed) and VMI (40–190 keV), with and without iMAR. Quantitative artifact and image noise was measured using 12 different ROIs. Subjective image quality was rated by two readers using a five-point Likert-scale in six categories, including overall image quality and vascular contrast. RESULTS: Lowest quantitative artifact in both hip and spinal implants was measured in VMI(190keV-iMAR). However, it was not significantly lower than in Mixed(iMAR) (for all ROIs, p = 1.00), which were rated best for overall image quality (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00–2.00], spine: 3.00 [IQR:2.00–3.00]). VMI(50keV-iMAR) was rated best for vascular contrast (hip: 1.00 [IQR: 1.00–2.00], spine: 2.00 [IQR: 1.00–2.00]), which was significantly better than Mixed (both, p < 0.001). VMI(50keV-iMAR) provided superior overall image quality compared to Mixed for hip (1.00 vs 2.00, p < 0.001) and similar diagnostic image quality for spinal implants (2.00 vs 2.00, p = 0.51). CONCLUSION: For abdominal sfDECT with hip or spinal implants Mixed(iMAR) images should be used. High keV VMI do not further improve image quality. IMAR allows the use of low keV images (VMI(50keV)) to improve vascular contrast, compared to Mixed images. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00261-022-03682-3. Springer US 2022-09-30 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9849167/ /pubmed/36180598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03682-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Technical
Wichtmann, Hildegard M.
Laukamp, Kai R.
Manneck, Sebastian
Appelt, Konrad
Stieltjes, Bram
Boll, Daniel T.
Benz, Matthias R.
Obmann, Markus M.
Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
title Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
title_full Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
title_fullStr Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
title_full_unstemmed Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
title_short Metal implants on abdominal CT: does split-filter dual-energy CT provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
title_sort metal implants on abdominal ct: does split-filter dual-energy ct provide additional value over iterative metal artifact reduction?
topic Technical
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9849167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36180598
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03682-3
work_keys_str_mv AT wichtmannhildegardm metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT laukampkair metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT mannecksebastian metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT appeltkonrad metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT stieltjesbram metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT bolldanielt metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT benzmatthiasr metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction
AT obmannmarkusm metalimplantsonabdominalctdoessplitfilterdualenergyctprovideadditionalvalueoveriterativemetalartifactreduction