Photon-counting detector computed tomography for metal artifact reduction: a comparative study of different artifact reduction techniques in patients with orthopedic implants
Fabian Bernhard Pallasch, Alexander Rau, Marco Reisert, Stephan Rau, Thierno Diallo, Thomas Stein, Sebastian Faby, Fabian Bamberg, Jakob Weiss
{"title":"Photon-counting detector computed tomography for metal artifact reduction: a comparative study of different artifact reduction techniques in patients with orthopedic implants","authors":"Fabian Bernhard Pallasch, Alexander Rau, Marco Reisert, Stephan Rau, Thierno Diallo, Thomas Stein, Sebastian Faby, Fabian Bamberg, Jakob Weiss","doi":"10.1007/s11547-024-01822-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Artifacts caused by metallic implants remain a challenge in computed tomography (CT). We investigated the impact of photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) for artifact reduction in patients with orthopedic implants with respect to image quality and diagnostic confidence using different artifact reduction approaches.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Material and methods</h3><p>In this prospective study, consecutive patients with orthopedic implants underwent PCD-CT imaging of the implant area. Four series were reconstructed for each patient (clinical standard reconstruction [PCD-CT<sub>Std</sub>], monoenergetic images at 140 keV [PCD-CT<sub>140keV</sub>], iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) corrected [PCD-CT<sub>iMAR</sub>], combination of iMAR and 140 keV monoenergetic [PCD-CT<sub>140keV+iMAR</sub>]). Subsequently, three radiologists evaluated the reconstructions in a random and blinded manner for image quality, artifact severity, anatomy delineation (adjacent and distant), and diagnostic confidence using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = excellent). In addition, the coefficient of variation [CV] and the relative quantitative artifact reduction potential were obtained as objective measures.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>We enrolled 39 patients with a mean age of 67.3 ± 13.2 years (51%; n = 20 male) and a mean BMI of 26.1 ± 4 kg/m<sup>2</sup>. All image quality measures and diagnostic confidence were significantly higher for the iMAR vs. non-iMAR reconstructions (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). No significant effect of the different artifact reduction approaches on CV was observed (<i>p</i> = 0.26). The quantitative analysis indicated the most effective artifact reduction for the iMAR reconstructions, which was higher than PCD-CT<sub>140keV</sub> (<i>p</i> < 0.001).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>PCD-CT allows for effective metal artifact reduction in patients with orthopedic implants, resulting in superior image quality and diagnostic confidence with the potential to improve patient management and clinical decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":501689,"journal":{"name":"La radiologia medica","volume":"123 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"La radiologia medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-024-01822-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Artifacts caused by metallic implants remain a challenge in computed tomography (CT). We investigated the impact of photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) for artifact reduction in patients with orthopedic implants with respect to image quality and diagnostic confidence using different artifact reduction approaches.
Material and methods
In this prospective study, consecutive patients with orthopedic implants underwent PCD-CT imaging of the implant area. Four series were reconstructed for each patient (clinical standard reconstruction [PCD-CTStd], monoenergetic images at 140 keV [PCD-CT140keV], iterative metal artifact reduction (iMAR) corrected [PCD-CTiMAR], combination of iMAR and 140 keV monoenergetic [PCD-CT140keV+iMAR]). Subsequently, three radiologists evaluated the reconstructions in a random and blinded manner for image quality, artifact severity, anatomy delineation (adjacent and distant), and diagnostic confidence using a 5-point Likert scale (5 = excellent). In addition, the coefficient of variation [CV] and the relative quantitative artifact reduction potential were obtained as objective measures.
Results
We enrolled 39 patients with a mean age of 67.3 ± 13.2 years (51%; n = 20 male) and a mean BMI of 26.1 ± 4 kg/m2. All image quality measures and diagnostic confidence were significantly higher for the iMAR vs. non-iMAR reconstructions (all p < 0.001). No significant effect of the different artifact reduction approaches on CV was observed (p = 0.26). The quantitative analysis indicated the most effective artifact reduction for the iMAR reconstructions, which was higher than PCD-CT140keV (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
PCD-CT allows for effective metal artifact reduction in patients with orthopedic implants, resulting in superior image quality and diagnostic confidence with the potential to improve patient management and clinical decision making.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
