Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Skeletal Radiology 9/2017

01-09-2017 | Scientific Article

Comparative study of fat-suppression techniques for hip arthroplasty MR imaging

Authors: Sébastien Molière, Jean-Philippe Dillenseger, Matthieu Ehlinger, Stéphane Kremer, Guillaume Bierry

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 9/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of this study was to evaluate different fat-suppressed fluid-sensitive sequences in association with different metal artifacts reduction techniques (MARS) to determine which combination allows better fat suppression around metallic hip implants.

Methods

An experimental study using an MRI fat–water phantom quantitatively evaluated contrast shift induced by metallic hip implant for different fat-suppression techniques and MARS. Then a clinical study with patients addressed to MRI unit for painful hip prosthesis compared these techniques in terms of fat suppression quality and diagnosis confidence.

Results

Among sequences without MARS, both T2 Dixon and short tau inversion recuperation (STIR) had significantly lower contrast shift (p < 0.05), Dixon offering the best fat suppression. Adding MARS (view-angle tilting or slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC)) to STIR gave better results than Dixon alone, and also better than SPAIR and fat saturation with MARS (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between STIR with view-angle tilting and STIR with SEMAC in terms of fat suppression quality.

Conclusions

STIR sequence is the preferred fluid-sensitive MR sequence in patients with metal implant. In combination with MARS (view-angle tilting or SEMAC), STIR appears to be the best option for high-quality fat suppression.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet Lond Engl. 2012;380:1768–77.CrossRef Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet Lond Engl. 2012;380:1768–77.CrossRef
2.s
go back to reference Cushner F, Agnelli G, FitzGerald G, Warwick D. Complications and functional outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: results from the Global Orthopaedic Registry (GLORY). Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2010;39:22–8.PubMed Cushner F, Agnelli G, FitzGerald G, Warwick D. Complications and functional outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty: results from the Global Orthopaedic Registry (GLORY). Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2010;39:22–8.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Koff MF, Shah P, Potter HG. Clinical implementation of MRI of joint arthroplasty. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:154–61.CrossRef Koff MF, Shah P, Potter HG. Clinical implementation of MRI of joint arthroplasty. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:154–61.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG. MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants. Radiogr. 2014;34:E106–32.CrossRef Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG. MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants. Radiogr. 2014;34:E106–32.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, et al. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:547–55.CrossRef Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, et al. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:547–55.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lüdeke KM, Röschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1985;3:329–43.CrossRefPubMed Lüdeke KM, Röschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1985;3:329–43.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Dillenseger JP, Molière S, Choquet P, et al. An illustrative review to understand and manage metal-induced artifacts in musculoskeletal MRI: a primer and updates. Skelet Radiol. 2016;45:677–88.CrossRef Dillenseger JP, Molière S, Choquet P, et al. An illustrative review to understand and manage metal-induced artifacts in musculoskeletal MRI: a primer and updates. Skelet Radiol. 2016;45:677–88.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Munk PL, et al. Quantitative assessment of an MR technique for reducing metal artifact: application to spin-echo imaging in a phantom. Skelet Radiol. 2001;30:398–401.CrossRef Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Munk PL, et al. Quantitative assessment of an MR technique for reducing metal artifact: application to spin-echo imaging in a phantom. Skelet Radiol. 2001;30:398–401.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA, et al. Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiogr. 2014;34:217–33.CrossRef Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA, et al. Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiogr. 2014;34:217–33.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Eggers H, Börnert P. Chemical shift encoding-based water-fat separation methods. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40:251–68.CrossRefPubMed Eggers H, Börnert P. Chemical shift encoding-based water-fat separation methods. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40:251–68.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bley TA, Wieben O, François CJ, Britain JH, Reeder SB. Fat and water magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2010;31:4–18.CrossRefPubMed Bley TA, Wieben O, François CJ, Britain JH, Reeder SB. Fat and water magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2010;31:4–18.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, et al. Quantitive evaluation of metal artifact reduction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:487–95.CrossRefPubMed Kolind SH, MacKay AL, Munk PL, et al. Quantitive evaluation of metal artifact reduction. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:487–95.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Jungmann PM, Ganter C, Schaeffeler CJ, et al. View-angle tilting and slice-encoding metal artifact correction for artifact reduction in MRI: experimental sequence optimization for orthopaedic tumor endoprostheses and clinical application. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jungmann PM, Ganter C, Schaeffeler CJ, et al. View-angle tilting and slice-encoding metal artifact correction for artifact reduction in MRI: experimental sequence optimization for orthopaedic tumor endoprostheses and clinical application. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Choi S-J, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, et al. Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:140–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Choi S-J, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, et al. Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:140–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Talbot BS, Weinberg E. Imaging with metal-suppression sequences for evaluation of Total joint arthroplasty. Radiographics. 2016;36:1–17.CrossRef Talbot BS, Weinberg E. Imaging with metal-suppression sequences for evaluation of Total joint arthroplasty. Radiographics. 2016;36:1–17.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Oppelt A (2011) Imaging systems for medical diagnostics: fundamentals, technical solutions and applications for systems applying ionizing radiation, nuclear magnetic resonance and ultrasound. John Wiley & Sons (p.214). Oppelt A (2011) Imaging systems for medical diagnostics: fundamentals, technical solutions and applications for systems applying ionizing radiation, nuclear magnetic resonance and ultrasound. John Wiley & Sons (p.214).
19.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Briant-Evans TW, Lyle N, Barbur S, et al. A longitudinal study of MARS MRI scanning of soft-tissue lesions around metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties and disease progression. Bone Jt J. 2015;97–B:1328–37.CrossRef Briant-Evans TW, Lyle N, Barbur S, et al. A longitudinal study of MARS MRI scanning of soft-tissue lesions around metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties and disease progression. Bone Jt J. 2015;97–B:1328–37.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Yu H, Shimakawa A, McKenzie CA, et al. Multiecho water–fat separation and simultaneous R2* estimation with multifrequency fat spectrum modeling. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60:1122–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Yu H, Shimakawa A, McKenzie CA, et al. Multiecho water–fat separation and simultaneous R2* estimation with multifrequency fat spectrum modeling. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60:1122–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Hess AT, Robson MD (2016) Hexagonal gradient scheme with RF spoiling improves spoiling performance for high-flip-angle fast gradient echo imaging. Magn Reson Med 0:1–7. Hess AT, Robson MD (2016) Hexagonal gradient scheme with RF spoiling improves spoiling performance for high-flip-angle fast gradient echo imaging. Magn Reson Med 0:1–7.
23.
go back to reference Hines CDG, Yu H, Shimakawa A, et al. T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat–water-SPIO phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2009;30:1215–22.CrossRefPubMed Hines CDG, Yu H, Shimakawa A, et al. T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat–water-SPIO phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2009;30:1215–22.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Le Y, Kipfer HD, Majidi SS, et al. Comparison of the artifacts caused by metallic implants in breast MRI using dual-echo Dixon versus conventional fat-suppression techniques. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:W307–14.CrossRef Le Y, Kipfer HD, Majidi SS, et al. Comparison of the artifacts caused by metallic implants in breast MRI using dual-echo Dixon versus conventional fat-suppression techniques. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:W307–14.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Zou Y, Chu B, Wang C, Hu Z. Evaluation of MR issues for the latest standard brands of orthopedic metal implants: plates and screws. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:450–7.CrossRefPubMed Zou Y, Chu B, Wang C, Hu Z. Evaluation of MR issues for the latest standard brands of orthopedic metal implants: plates and screws. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:450–7.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Winfield JM, Douglas NHM, Desouza NM, Collins DJ. Phantom for assessment of fat suppression in large field-of-view diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:2235–48.CrossRefPubMed Winfield JM, Douglas NHM, Desouza NM, Collins DJ. Phantom for assessment of fat suppression in large field-of-view diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:2235–48.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Ulbrich EJ, Sutter R, Aguiar RF, et al. STIR sequence with increased receiver bandwidth of the inversion pulse for reduction of metallic artifacts. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:W735–42.CrossRef Ulbrich EJ, Sutter R, Aguiar RF, et al. STIR sequence with increased receiver bandwidth of the inversion pulse for reduction of metallic artifacts. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:W735–42.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Ramnath RR. 3T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (part II): clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:41–62.CrossRefPubMed Ramnath RR. 3T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system (part II): clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:41–62.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Lee M, Kim S, Song H, et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics. 2007;27:791–804.CrossRefPubMed Lee M, Kim S, Song H, et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics. 2007;27:791–804.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Shapiro L, Harish M, Hargreaves B, et al. Advances in musculoskeletal MRI: technical considerations. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2012;36:775–87.CrossRefPubMed Shapiro L, Harish M, Hargreaves B, et al. Advances in musculoskeletal MRI: technical considerations. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI. 2012;36:775–87.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparative study of fat-suppression techniques for hip arthroplasty MR imaging
Authors
Sébastien Molière
Jean-Philippe Dillenseger
Matthieu Ehlinger
Stéphane Kremer
Guillaume Bierry
Publication date
01-09-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2670-1

Other articles of this Issue 9/2017

Skeletal Radiology 9/2017 Go to the issue