2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00261-022-03475-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utility of an automatic adaptive iterative metal artifact reduction AiMAR algorithm in improving CT imaging of patients with hip prostheses evaluated for suspected bladder malignancy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The complete removal of implant-specific strength settings and the application of a single set of correction parameters to different metallic implants increase the variance of artifact correction, as previous studies of the AiMAR prototype have shown. As introduced in the introduction, several studies demonstrated the preference of the dedicated iMAR reconstructions over the generic AiMAR reconstructions in certain body regions, 20,22 also leading to “anatomy blurring in 40% of the implants.” 21 Nevertheless, the benefits of a framework for correcting metal artifacts without additional user input are obvious, as it would optimize the clinical workflow. This was one of the main goals of AiMAR.…”
Section: Discussion and Outlookmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The complete removal of implant-specific strength settings and the application of a single set of correction parameters to different metallic implants increase the variance of artifact correction, as previous studies of the AiMAR prototype have shown. As introduced in the introduction, several studies demonstrated the preference of the dedicated iMAR reconstructions over the generic AiMAR reconstructions in certain body regions, 20,22 also leading to “anatomy blurring in 40% of the implants.” 21 Nevertheless, the benefits of a framework for correcting metal artifacts without additional user input are obvious, as it would optimize the clinical workflow. This was one of the main goals of AiMAR.…”
Section: Discussion and Outlookmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AiMAR has been shown to provide stable results for most metal cases, particularly in patients with multiple metal implants, 20,21 but it has not been able to match the image quality of the dedicated iMAR presets in individual metal scenarios, apart from its parameter adaption; for example, a first study showed that the AiMAR reconstructions of cases with dental fillings and coils in the head and neck still contained more artifacts than their iMAR counterparts, implying that the artifact reduction was too weak. 20 In contrast, other studies have shown a preference for iMAR reconstructions over AiMAR reconstructions in patients with hip implants 22 or an overcorrection in endoprostheses. 21 To keep the flexibility of adjustable strength settings but to provide dedicated image quality, this work introduced a new iMARv2 framework and performed its first clinical evaluation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…At worst, these artifacts lead to completely non-assessable datasets. To meet this challenge, several metal-artifacts-reduction (MAR) algorithms have been developed not only for FD-CTA [12][13][14][15], but also, for example, for mobile cone beam CT imaging of the spine [16], for CT imaging in patients with head and neck cancer and dental implants [17], or patients with suspected bladder malignancy and hip prostheses [18], and even patients with complex lower extremity fractures and external fixators [19]. In all examples, the MAR algorithms demonstrated significant artifact reduction with improved diagnostic quality.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%