We have located links that may give you full text access.
Iterative metal artefact reduction in CT: can dedicated algorithms improve image quality after spinal instrumentation?
Clinical Radiology 2017 May
AIM: To investigate the value of dedicated computed tomography (CT) iterative metal artefact reduction (iMAR) algorithms in patients after spinal instrumentation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-surgical spinal CT images of 24 patients performed between March 2015 and July 2016 were retrospectively included. Images were reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with two dedicated iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1, adjusted to spinal instrumentations and iMAR-Algo2, adjusted to large metallic hip implants) using a medium smooth kernel (B30f) and a sharp kernel (B70f). Frequencies of density changes were quantified to assess objective image quality. Image quality was rated subjectively by evaluating the visibility of critical anatomical structures including the central canal, the spinal cord, neural foramina, and vertebral bone.
RESULTS: Both iMAR algorithms significantly reduced artefacts from metal compared with WFBP (p<0.0001). Results of subjective image analysis showed that both iMAR algorithms led to an improvement in visualisation of soft-tissue structures (median iMAR-Algo1=3; interquartile range [IQR]:1.5-3; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR: 3.5-4) and bone structures (iMAR-Algo1=3; IQR:3-4; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR:4-5) compared to WFBP (soft tissue: median 2; IQR: 0.5-2 and bone structures: median 2; IQR: 1-3; p<0.0001). Compared with iMAR-Algo1, objective artefact reduction and subjective visualisation of soft-tissue and bone structures were improved with iMAR-Algo2 (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Both iMAR algorithms reduced artefacts compared with WFBP, however, the iMAR algorithm with dedicated settings for large metallic implants was superior to the algorithm specifically adjusted to spinal implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Post-surgical spinal CT images of 24 patients performed between March 2015 and July 2016 were retrospectively included. Images were reconstructed with standard weighted filtered back projection (WFBP) and with two dedicated iMAR algorithms (iMAR-Algo1, adjusted to spinal instrumentations and iMAR-Algo2, adjusted to large metallic hip implants) using a medium smooth kernel (B30f) and a sharp kernel (B70f). Frequencies of density changes were quantified to assess objective image quality. Image quality was rated subjectively by evaluating the visibility of critical anatomical structures including the central canal, the spinal cord, neural foramina, and vertebral bone.
RESULTS: Both iMAR algorithms significantly reduced artefacts from metal compared with WFBP (p<0.0001). Results of subjective image analysis showed that both iMAR algorithms led to an improvement in visualisation of soft-tissue structures (median iMAR-Algo1=3; interquartile range [IQR]:1.5-3; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR: 3.5-4) and bone structures (iMAR-Algo1=3; IQR:3-4; iMAR-Algo2=4; IQR:4-5) compared to WFBP (soft tissue: median 2; IQR: 0.5-2 and bone structures: median 2; IQR: 1-3; p<0.0001). Compared with iMAR-Algo1, objective artefact reduction and subjective visualisation of soft-tissue and bone structures were improved with iMAR-Algo2 (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Both iMAR algorithms reduced artefacts compared with WFBP, however, the iMAR algorithm with dedicated settings for large metallic implants was superior to the algorithm specifically adjusted to spinal implants.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app