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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |