We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Metal Artifact Reduction on Chest Computed Tomography Examinations: Comparison of the Iterative Metallic Artefact Reduction Algorithm and the Monoenergetic Approach.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare iterative metallic artefact reduction (iMAR) and monochromatic imaging on metal artifact reduction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Follow-up of 29 occluded pulmonary arteriovenous malformations was obtained with dual-energy computed tomography with reconstruction of averaged images using filtered back projection (group 1), iMAR (group 2), and creation of high-energy monoenergetic images (group 3). Two types of coils had been used: (a) nickel only (group A, n = 18) and (b) nickel and platinum (group B, n = 11).
RESULTS: Compared with group 1, groups 2 and 3 images showed significant reduction in artifact severity. Compared with group 3, group 2 images showed less artifacts on subjective (artifact severity score: P = 0.0118; score of visibility of surrounding structures: P = 0.0056) and objective (artifact attenuation: P < 0.0001) analyses. In group A, there was no significant difference in artifact severity between groups 2 and 3 images (P > 0.05). In group B, metal artifacts were only significantly reduced in group 2 images.
CONCLUSIONS: Iterative metallic artefact reduction reduces metal artifacts more efficiently than monoenergetic imaging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Follow-up of 29 occluded pulmonary arteriovenous malformations was obtained with dual-energy computed tomography with reconstruction of averaged images using filtered back projection (group 1), iMAR (group 2), and creation of high-energy monoenergetic images (group 3). Two types of coils had been used: (a) nickel only (group A, n = 18) and (b) nickel and platinum (group B, n = 11).
RESULTS: Compared with group 1, groups 2 and 3 images showed significant reduction in artifact severity. Compared with group 3, group 2 images showed less artifacts on subjective (artifact severity score: P = 0.0118; score of visibility of surrounding structures: P = 0.0056) and objective (artifact attenuation: P < 0.0001) analyses. In group A, there was no significant difference in artifact severity between groups 2 and 3 images (P > 0.05). In group B, metal artifacts were only significantly reduced in group 2 images.
CONCLUSIONS: Iterative metallic artefact reduction reduces metal artifacts more efficiently than monoenergetic imaging.
Full text links
Related Resources
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