Visibility of bony structures around hip prostheses in dual‐energy <scp>CT</scp>: With or without metal artefact reduction software

Jeong, Jewon; Kim, Hyun-joo; Oh, Eunsun; Gyu, Jang; Hwang, Jiyoung; Hong, Seong Sook; Chang, Yun Woo

doi:10.1111/1754-9485.12746

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have evaluated the combination of both tools to reduce metal artifacts in DECT [20][21][22][23][24], although the efficacy of these combined approaches on different types of hip prosthesis materials remains to be demonstrated. In particular, attention must be given to the possible generation of new, MAR-related artifacts that affect larger metal components and heavier metals [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Applications to Reduce Metal Artifacts in Hip Prostheses: A Phantom Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metal components of hip prostheses cause severe artifacts in CT images, influencing diagnostic accuracy. Metal artifact reduction (MAR) software and virtual monoenergetic reconstructions on dual-energy CT (DECT) systems are possible solutions that should be considered. In this study, we created a customized adjustable phantom to quantify the severity of artifacts on periprosthetic tissues (cortical and spongious bone, soft tissues) for hip prostheses. The severity of artifacts was classified by different thresholds of deviation from the CT numbers for reference objects not affected by artifacts. The in vitro setup was applied on four unilateral and three bilateral configurations of hip prostheses (made of titanium, cobalt, and stainless steel alloys) with a DECT system, changing the energy of virtual monoenergetic reconstructions, with and without MAR. The impact of these tools on the severity of artifacts was scored, looking for the best scan conditions for the different configurations. For titanium prostheses, the reconstruction at 110 keV, without MAR, always minimized the artifacts. For cobalt and stainless-steel prostheses, MAR should always be applied, while monoenergetic reconstruction alone did not show clear advantages. The available tools for reducing metal artifacts must therefore be applied depending on the examined prosthetic configuration.

show abstract