2016
DOI: 10.12809/hkjr1615356
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Metal Artefact Reduction by Dual-energy Computed Tomography Using Monoenergetic Extrapolation: In-vitro Determination of Optimal Monoenergetic Level with Different Metallic Implants Using a Phantom Body

Abstract: Objective: To identify the optimal monoenergetic level, balancing metal artefacts, and the amount of noise present for imaging of metal implants using dual-energy computed tomography (CT) and focusing on the assessment of peri-prosthetic soft tissue. Methods: Four metallic implants commonly used in the hips were placed in a phantom body: unipolar hemiprosthesis, dynamic hip screw (DHS), intra-medullary (IM) nail, and titanium insert. The unipolar hemiprosthesis was imaged at two points: the head and stem. The … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some studies on VMI focused on MAR while the diagnostic image quality or the assessability of adjacent bony structures was not evaluated. 42,43 Other studies 12,13 automatically associate an effective MAR with increased image quality in their Likert scale, which may well not be the case, as the results of this study show. Only Guggenberger et al 10 assessed adjacent bony structures separately from MA and still conclude, however, that calculating VMI leads to a statistically significant improvement in the assessability of adjacent bony structures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Some studies on VMI focused on MAR while the diagnostic image quality or the assessability of adjacent bony structures was not evaluated. 42,43 Other studies 12,13 automatically associate an effective MAR with increased image quality in their Likert scale, which may well not be the case, as the results of this study show. Only Guggenberger et al 10 assessed adjacent bony structures separately from MA and still conclude, however, that calculating VMI leads to a statistically significant improvement in the assessability of adjacent bony structures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…For VMI and DE composited CT images, it is important to differentiate between the excellent MAR described several times in literature 12,15,40,41 and the assessability of adjacent bony structures. Some studies on VMI focused on MAR while the diagnostic image quality or the assessability of adjacent bony structures was not evaluated 42,43 . Other studies 12,13 automatically associate an effective MAR with increased image quality in their Likert scale, which may well not be the case, as the results of this study show.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…In children, spinal fusion for scoliosis and repair of developmental hip dysplasia are clinical scenarios in which the quality of the CT images may be degraded by the presence of metal implants. Virtual monoenergetic images between 110 keV and 150 keV can significantly reduce metal artifacts and improve image quality by preferentially removing the low-energy photons that contribute to beam hardening (57)(58)(59)(60) (Fig 17). In a recent study of a vertebra phantom, virtual monoenergetic images were superior to other metal artifact reduction algorithms in the evaluation of metal implants (61).…”
Section: Oncologic Imagingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 In a local in-vitro study using a phantom body, optimal monoenergetic energy level differed based on the implant type and material used. 21 Further largescale clinical trials in patients are needed to optimise the protocol in this respect. A standardised optimal energy (in keV) may therefore be tailor-made based on an institution's preference, type of metallic device, and imaged region.…”
Section: (A) (B)mentioning
confidence: 99%