Metal artifact reduction (MAR) based on two-compartment physical modeling: evaluation in patients with hip implants

Abstract

Background

Artifacts from metallic implants can hinder image interpretation in computed tomography (CT). Image quality can be improved using metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques.

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of a MAR algorithm on image quality of CT examinations in comparison to filtered back projection (FBP) in patients with hip prostheses.

Material and Methods

Twenty-two patients with 25 hip prostheses who underwent clinical abdominopelvic CT on a 64-row CT were included in this retrospective study. Axial images were reconstructed with FBP and five increasing MAR levels (M30–34). Objective artifact strength (OAS) (SI_art-SI_norm) was assessed by region of interest (ROI) measurements in position of the strongest artifact (SI_art) and in an osseous structure without artifact (SI_norm) (in Hounsfield units [HU]). Two independent readers evaluated subjective image quality regarding metallic hardware, delineation of bone, adjacent muscle, and pelvic organs on a 5-point scale (1, non-diagnostic; 5, excellent image quality). Artifacts in the near field, far field, and newly induced artifacts due to the MAR technique were analyzed.

Results

OAS values were: M34: 243.8 ± 155.4 HU; M33: 294.3 ± 197.8 HU; M32: 340.5 ± 210.1 HU; M31: 393.6 ± 225.2 HU; M30: 446.8 ± 224.2 HU and FBP: 528.9 ± 227.7 HU. OAS values were significantly lower for M32–34 compared to FBP (P < 0.01). For overall subjective image quality, results were: FBP, 2.0 ± 0.2; M30, 2.3 ± 0.8; M31, 2.6 ± 0.5; M32, 3.0 ± 0.6; M33, 3.5 ± 0.6; and M34, 3.8 ± 0.4 (P < 0.001 for M30–M34 vs. FBP, respectively). Increasing MAR levels resulted in new artifacts in 17% of reconstructions.

Conclusion

The investigated MAR algorithm led to a significant reduction of artifacts from metallic hip implants. The highest MAR level provided the least severe artifacts and the best overall image quality.

Keywords

Skeletal – appendicular computed tomography (CT)hip joints pelvis technology assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kröpil

Bigdeli

Nagel

. Impact of increasing levels of advanced iterative reconstruction on image quality in low-dose cardiac CT angiography. Rofo 2014; 186: 567–575.

Euler

Heye

Kekelidze

. Assessment of image quality and low-contrast detectability in abdominal CT of obese patients: comparison of a novel integrated circuit with a conventional discrete circuit detector at different tube voltages. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 687–693.

Roth

Maertz

Parr

. CT of the hip prosthesis: appearance of components, fixation, and complications. Radiographics 2012; 32: 1089–1107.

Paudel

Mackenzie

Fallone

. Clinical evaluation of normalized metal artifact reduction in kVCT using MVCT prior images (MVCT-NMAR) for radiation therapy treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 89: 682–689.

Lell

Meyer

Schmidt

. Frequency split metal artifact reduction in pelvic computed tomography. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2137–2145.

Spadea

Verburg

Baroni

. Dosimetric assessment of a novel metal artifact reduction method in CT images. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2013; 14: 4027–4027.

Andersson

Ahnesjö

Vallhagen Dahlgren

. Evaluation of a metal artifact reduction algorithm in CT studies used for proton radiotherapy treatment planning. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15: 4857–4857.

Boas

Fleischmann

. Evaluation of two iterative techniques for reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography. Radiology 2011; 259: 894–902.

De Man

Nuyts

Dupont

. Metal streak artifacts in X-ray computed tomography: a simulation study. Nuclear Science, IEEE Transactions on 1999; 49: 691–696.

10.

Herman

. Correction for beam hardening in computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 1979; 24: 81–106.

11.

Mahnken

Raupach

Wildberger

. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 769–775.

12.

Han

Chung

Lee

. Metal artifact reduction software used with abdominopelvic dual-energy CT of patients with metal hip prostheses: assessment of image quality and clinical feasibility. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 788–795.

13.

Hilgers

Nuver

Minken

. The CT number accuracy of a novel commercial metal artifact reduction algorithm for large orthopedic implants. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15: 4597–4597.

14.

Raupach R, Shukla H, Amies C, et al. MARIS – Metal Artifact Reduction in Image Space – Technical Principles, 12/2013, Siemens Healthcare. Available at: www.siemens.com/radiation-oncology; Order No. A91RO-00705-03C1-7600.

15.

General Electric Company, GE Healthcare. Smart Metal Artifact Reduction (MAR). 2013. Available at: www.gehealthcare.com/MAR (accessed 28 January 2015).

16.

Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation. Single Energy Metal Artifact Reduction. 2013. Available at: http://www.adaptivediagnostics.com/tmd/a_d/semar.html (accessed 28 January 2015).

17.

Bamberg

Dierks

Nikolaou

. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 1424–1429.

18.

Subhas

Primak

Obuchowski

. Iterative metal artifact reduction: Evaluation and optimization of technique. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43: 1729–1735.

19.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

20.

Kalender

Hebel

Ebersberger

. Reduction of CT artifacts caused by metallic implants. Radiology 1987; 164: 576–577.

21.

Rinkel

Dillon

Funk

. Computed tomographic metal artifact reduction for the detection and quantitation of small features near large metallic implants: a comparison of published methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008; 32: 621–629.

22.

Kachelriess

Watzke

Kalender

. Generalized multi-dimensional adaptive filtering for conventional and spiral single-slice, multi-slice, and cone-beam CT. Med Phys 2001; 28: 475–490.

23.

Zhao

Robertson

Wang

. X-ray CT metal artifact reduction using wavelets: an application for imaging total hip prostheses. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000; 19: 1238–1247.

24.

Morsbach

Bickelhaupt

Wanner

. Reduction of metal artifacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology 2013; 268: 237–244.

25.

Noel

Chen

. Clinical evaluation of a commercial orthopedic metal artifact reduction tool for CT simulations in radiation therapy. Med Phys 2012; 39: 7507–7517.

26.

Lewis

Reid

Toms

. Reducing the effects of metal artifact using high keV monoenergetic reconstruction of dual energy CT (DECT) in hip replacements. Skeletal Radiol 2013; 42: 275–282.

27.

Lee

Park

Song

. Metal artifact reduction in gemstone spectral imaging dual-energy CT with and without metal artifact reduction software. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1331–1340.

28.

Dong

Hayakawa

Kannenberg

. Metal-induced streak artifact reduction using iterative reconstruction algorithms in x-ray computed tomography image of the dentoalveolar region. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2013; 115: 63–73.

29.

Morsbach

Wurnig

Kunz

. Metal artifact reduction from dental hardware in carotid CT angiography using iterative reconstructions. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 2687–2694.