Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4524–4533 | Cite as

CT metal artifacts in patients with total hip replacements: for artifact reduction monoenergetic reconstructions and post-processing algorithms are both efficient but not similar

  • Kai Roman Laukamp
  • Simon Lennartz
  • Victor-Frederic Neuhaus
  • Nils Große Hokamp
  • Robert Rau
  • Markus Le Blanc
  • Nuran Abdullayev
  • Anastasios Mpotsaris
  • David Maintz
  • Jan Borggrefe
Computed Tomography

Abstract

Objectives

This study compares metal artifact (MA) reduction in imaging of total hip replacements (THR) using virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), for MA-reduction-specialized reconstructions (MAR) and conventional CT images (CI) from detector-based dual-energy computed tomography (SDCT).

Methods

Twenty-seven SDCT-datasets of patients carrying THR were included. CI, MAR and VMI with different energy-levels (60–200 keV) were reconstructed from the same scans. MA width was measured. Attenuation (HU), noise (SD) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were determined in: extinction artifact, adjacent bone, muscle and bladder. Two radiologists assessed MA-reduction and image quality visually.

Results

In comparison to CI, VMI (200 keV) and MAR showed a strong artifact reduction (MA width: CI 29.9±6.8 mm, VMI 17.6±13.6 mm, p<0.001; MAR 16.5±14.9 mm, p<0.001; MA density: CI -412.1±204.5 HU, VMI -279.7±283.7 HU; p<0.01; MAR -116.74±105.6 HU, p<0.001). In strong artifacts reduction was superior by MAR. In moderate artifacts VMI was more effective. MAR showed best noise reduction and CNR in bladder and muscle (p<0.05), whereas VMI were superior for depiction of bone (p<0.05). Visual assessment confirmed that VMI and MAR improve artifact reduction and image quality (p<0.001).

Conclusions

MAR and VMI (200 keV) yielded significant MA reduction. Each showed distinct advantages both regarding effectiveness of artifact reduction, MAR regarding assessment of soft tissue and VMI regarding assessment of bone.

Key Points

Spectral-detector computed tomography improves assessment of total hip replacements and surrounding tissue.

Virtual monoenergetic images and MAR reduce metal artifacts and enhance image quality.

Evaluation of bone, muscle and pelvic organs can be improved by SDCT.

Keywords

X-ray computed tomography Artifacts Arthroplasty Hip Bone 

Abbreviations

CI

Conventional CT imaging/images

CNR

Contrast-to-noise ratio

MA

Metal artifact

MAR

Metal artifact reduction algorithm

SDCT

Spectral-detector CT

THR

Total hip replacement

VMI

Virtual monoenergetic images

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jan Borggrefe.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Fayad LM, Patra A, Fishman EK (2009) Value of 3D CT in defining skeletal complications of orthopedic hardware in the postoperative patient. Am J Roentgenol 193:1155–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee M-J, Kim S, Lee S-A et al (2007) Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. RadioGraphics 27:791–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mori I, Machida Y, Osanai M, Iinuma K (2013) Photon starvation artifacts of x-ray CT: their true cause and a solution. Radiol Phys Technol 6:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boas FE, Fleischmann D (2012) CT artifacts: causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med 4:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gwam CU, Mistry JB, Mohamed NS, et al (2017) Current epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States: national inpatient sample 2009 to 2013. J ArthroplastGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katz JN, Wright EA, Wright J et al (2012) Twelve-year risk of revision after primary total hip replacement in the U.S. Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1825–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Neuhaus V, Große Hokamp N, Abdullayev N et al (2017) Metal artifact reduction by dual-layer computed tomography using virtual monoenergetic images. Eur J Radiol 93:143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis M, Reid K, Toms AP (2013) Reducing the effects of metal artefact using high keV monoenergetic reconstruction of dual energy CT (DECT) in hip replacements. Skeletal Radiol 42:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andersson KM, Nowik P, Persliden J et al (2015) Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses—an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendors. Br J Radiol 88:20140473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kidoh M, Nakaura T, Nakamura S et al (2014) Reduction of dental metallic artefacts in CT: value of a newly developed algorithm for metal artefact reduction (O-MAR). Clin Radiol 69:e11–e16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philips CT Clinical Science PHU (2012) Metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR) [Philips NetForum Community]. Available via http://clinical.netforum.healthcare.philips.com/us_en/Explore/White-Papers/CT/Metal-Artifact-Reduction-for-Orthopedic-Implants-(O-MAR). Accessed 01 July 2017
  12. 12.
    Boomsma MF, Warringa N, Edens MA et al (2016) Quantitative analysis of orthopedic metal artefact reduction in 64-slice computed tomography scans in large head metal-on-metal total hip replacement, a phantom study. Springerplus 5:405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Senan R, Yester M (2013) SU-E-I-21: metal artifact reduction in CT for surgical screws: comparison between two commercially available software packages. Med Phys 40:129–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wellenberg RHH, Boomsma MF, van Osch JAC et al (2017) Quantifying metal artefact reduction using virtual monochromatic dual-layer detector spectral CT imaging in unilateral and bilateral total hip prostheses. Eur J Radiol 88:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silva AC, Morse BG, Hara AK et al (2011) Dual-energy (spectral) CT: applications in abdominal imaging. RadioGraphics 31:1031–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McCollough CH, Leng S, Yu L, Fletcher JG (2015) Dual- and multi-energy CT: principles, technical approaches, and clinical applications. Radiology 276:637–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alvarez RE, Macovski A (1976) Energy-selective reconstructions in x-ray computerized tomography. Phys Med Biol 21:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neuhaus V, Abdullayev N, Große Hokamp N et al (2017) Improvement of image quality in unenhanced dual-layer CT of the head using virtual monoenergetic images compared with polyenergetic single-energy CT. Invest Radiol 1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:1–55Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dong Y, Shi AJ, Wu JL et al (2016) Metal artifact reduction using virtual monochromatic images for patients with pedicle screws implants on CT. Eur Spine J 25:1754–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Komlosi P, Grady D, Smith JS et al (2015) Evaluation of monoenergetic imaging to reduce metallic instrumentation artifacts in computed tomography of the cervical spine. J Neurosurg Spine 22:34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Filograna L, Magarelli N, Leone A et al (2015) Value of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) for artefact reduction from metallic orthopedic implants in post-mortem studies. Skeletal Radiol 44:1287–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Große Hokamp N, Neuhaus V, Abdullayev N, et al (2017) Reduction of artifacts caused by orthopedic hardware in the spine in spectral detector CT examinations using virtual monoenergetic image reconstructions and metal-artifact-reduction algorithms. Skeletal Radiol 1–7.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bisschop R, Boomsma M, Van Raay JJA et al (2013) High prevalence of pseudotumors in patients with a Birmingham hip resurfacing prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 95:1554–1560.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aissa J, Thomas C, Sawicki LM et al (2017) Iterative metal artefact reduction in CT: can dedicated algorithms improve image quality after spinal instrumentation? Clin Radiol 72:428.e7–428.e12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mangold S, Gatidis S, Luz O et al (2014) Single-source dual-energy computed tomography. Invest Radiol 49:788–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018
corrected publication June 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Roman Laukamp
    • 1
  • Simon Lennartz
    • 1
  • Victor-Frederic Neuhaus
    • 1
  • Nils Große Hokamp
    • 1
  • Robert Rau
    • 1
  • Markus Le Blanc
    • 1
  • Nuran Abdullayev
    • 1
  • Anastasios Mpotsaris
    • 1
  • David Maintz
    • 1
  • Jan Borggrefe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations