Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) artefacts in hip prostheses: a comparison of different prosthetic compositions

Abstract

The composition of prosthetic implants is decisive in determining the quality of MR imaging.

Magnetic-resonance-imaging-based three-dimensional muscle reconstruction of hip abductor muscle volume in a person with a transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis: A feasibility study

“…Participants' burden was acceptable because it was limited to 3-h time investment (1 h per MRI scan), but both the need for technical support during the MRI scans and the time-intensive data analysis, decrease the feasibility in studies with a large sample size. We opted a 1.5T MRI scanner and an MRI protocol based on previous research (Scheys, 2009) in an attempt to achieve optimal distinction of muscle boundaries and concurrently reduce metal artifacts (Lazik et al, 2015;Nardo et al, 2015;Panfili et al, 2014). These choices were successful, as illustrated by the high image quality obtained (Figure 2) and the absence of image artifacts within the regions of interest (Figure 3).…”

“…Jaegers, Arendzen, and De Jongh (1995b) used this volumetric measurement technique successfully despite the changed geometry of some muscles and the presence of transected muscles in a cross-sectional study including persons with a transfemoral amputation who used a socket attached prosthesis. It is unknown whether this procedure is applicable in persons with a bone-anchored prosthesis since metal implants can cause artifacts that may hinder exact evaluation of muscle measurements (Panfili et al, 2014).…”

Optimization of Scan Time in MRI for Total Hip Prostheses: SEMAC Tailoring for Prosthetic Implants Containing Different Types of Metals

“…As a result, the implant material is usually unknown, the imaging protocols are not optimized based on the material and clinical studies do not differentiate results based on prostheses models. Recently, there has been an increased interest in studying the influence of implant material on the performance of an artifact reduction sequence [13,14,16,17]. Månson et al presented a method for evaluating the performance of different techniques using SEMAC, VAT and T 1-w TSE sequences with different prostheses.…”

“…Depending on the prosthesis material, a larger or smaller number of SES would be sufficient for SEMAC metal artifact reduction. Therefore, several studies have recently taken into account the influence of the implant material on the efficiency of different artifact suppression methods: a) SE, GRE and high bandwidth TSE [14,17], b) MAVRIC [16] and c) SEMAC [13,14]. Månson et al highlighted that a proper number of SES is critical for the performance of SEMAC and also that the material of a prosthesis is a decisive parameter affecting the performance of an artifact reduction technique [13].…”

Practical aspects of prostate MRI: hardware and software considerations, protocols, and patient preparation

“…Additionally, implants associated with abdominal and pelvic comorbidities-such as hip replacements [17,18] or lumbar fusions [19]-can significantly affect image quality for certain modalities. This detrimental effect of implants on MR imaging is changing with increased usage of non-metallic implants [20]. Irrespective of the imaging center's abilities to perform an mpMRI, the individual patient history will dictate the most appropriate imaging metrics to include for diagnosis.…”