Top

Published in:

01-09-2015 | Scientific Article

Value of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) for artefact reduction from metallic orthopedic implants in post-mortem studies

Authors: Laura Filograna, Nicola Magarelli, Antonio Leone, Roman Guggenberger, Sebastian Winklhofer, Michael John Thali, Lorenzo Bonomo

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 9/2015

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this ex vivo study was to assess the performance of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) reconstructions to reduce metal artefacts in bodies with orthopedic devices in comparison with standard single-energy CT (SECT) examinations in forensic imaging. Forensic and clinical impacts of this study are also discussed.

Materials and methods

Thirty metallic implants in 20 consecutive cadavers with metallic implants underwent both SECT and DECT with a clinically suitable scanning protocol. Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105, 120, and 130 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimized image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Image quality of the seven monoenergetic images and of the corresponding SECT image was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by visual rating and measurements of attenuation changes induced by streak artefact.

Results

Qualitative and quantitative analyses showed statistically significant differences between monoenergetic DECT extrapolated images and SECT, with improvements in diagnostic assessment in monoenergetic DECT at higher monoenergies. The mean value of OPTkeV was 137.6 ± 4.9 with a range of 130 to 148 keV.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that monoenergetic DECT images extrapolated at high energy levels significantly reduce metallic artefacts from orthopedic implants and improve image quality compared to SECT examination in forensic imaging.

Thali MJ, Yen K, Schweitzer W, et al. Virtopsy, a new imaging horizon in forensic pathology: virtual autopsy by postmortem multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—a feasibility study. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48:1–18.

Kahana T, Hiss J. Forensic radiology. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:129–33.PubMedCrossRef

Wallace SK, Cohen WA, Stern EJ, Reay DT. Judicial hanging: postmortem radiographic, CT, and MR imaging features with autopsy confirmation. Radiology. 1994;193:263–7.PubMedCrossRef

Poulsen K, Simonsen J. Computed tomography in connection with medico-legal autopsies. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;171:190–7.PubMedCrossRef

Hayakawa M, Yamamoto S, Motani H, Yajima D, Sato Y, Iwase H. Does imaging technology overcome problems of conventional postmortem examination. Int J Legal Med. 2006;120:24–6.PubMedCrossRef

O’Donnell C, Woodford N. Post-mortem radiology—a new sub-speciality? Clin Radiol. 2008;63:1189–94.PubMedCrossRef

Shiotani S, Shiigai M, Ueno Y, et al. Postmortem computed tomography findings as evidence of traffic accident-related fatal injury. Radiat Med. 2008;26:253–60.PubMedCrossRef

Sochor MR, Trowbridge MJ, Boscak A, Maino JC, Maio RF. Postmortem computed tomography as an adjunct to autopsy for analyzing fatal motor vehicle crash injuries: results of a pilot study. J Trauma. 2008;65:659–65.PubMedCrossRef

Leth PM, Ibsen M. Abbreviated injury scale scoring in traffic fatalities: comparison of computerized tomography and autopsy. J Trauma. 2010;68:1413–6.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Scholing M, Saltzherr TP, Fung Kon Jin P, et al. The value of postmortem computed tomography as an alternative for autopsy in trauma victims: a systematic review. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2333–41.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

11.

Thali MJ, Markwalder T, Jackowski C, Sonnenschein M, Dirnhofer R. Dental CT imaging as a screening tool for dental profiling: advantages and limitations. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51:113–9.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA, et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics. 2007;27:791–803.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Watzke O, Kalender WA. A pragmatic approach to metal artifact reduction in CT: merging of metal artifact reduced images. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:849–56.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics. 2004;24:1679–91.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Haramati N, Staron RB, Mazel-Sperling K, et al. CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1994;18:429–34.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Douglas-Akinwande AC, Buckwalter KA, Rydberg J, Rankin JL, Choplin RH. Multichannel CT: evaluating the spine in postoperative patients with orthopedic hardware. Radiographics. 2006;26:S97–110.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Buckwalter KA, Parr JA, Choplin RH, Capello WN. Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2006;10:86–97.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kachelriess M, Watzke O, Kalender WA. Generalized multidimensional adaptive filtering for conventional and spiral single slice, multi-slice, and cone-beam CT. Med Phys. 2001;28:475–90.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Veldkamp WJ, Joemai RM, van der Molen AJ, Geleijns J. Development and validation of segmentation and interpolation techniques in sinograms for metal artifact suppression in CT. Med Phys. 2010;37:620–8.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, et al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Investig Radiol. 2003;38:769–75.CrossRef

21.

Bal M, Spies L. Metal artifact reduction in CT using tissue-class modeling and adaptive prefiltering. Med Phys. 2006;33:2852–9.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Link TM, Berning W, Scherf S, et al. CT of metal implants: reduction of artifacts using an extended CT scale technique. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000;24:165–72.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Meyer E, Raupach R, Lell M, Schmidt B, Kachelriess M. Normalized metal artifact reduction (NMAR) in computed tomography. Med Phys. 2010;37:5482–93.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Lemmens C, Faul D, Nuyts J. Suppression of metal artifacts in CT using a reconstruction procedure that combines MAP and projection completion. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:250–60.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Yu L, Li H, Mueller J, et al. Metal artifact reduction from reformatted projections for hip prostheses in multislice helical computed tomography techniques and initial clinical results. Investig Radiol. 2009;44:691–6.CrossRef

26.

Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Kachelrie M, Kalender WA. Reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography caused by hip endoprostheses using a physics-based approach. Investig Radiol. 2010;45:747–54.CrossRef

27.

Coupal TM, Mallinson PI, McLaughlin P, Nicolaou S, Munk PL, Ouellette H. Peering through the glare: using dual-energy CT to overcome the problem of metal artefacts in bone radiology. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43:567–75.CrossRef

28.

Stolzmann P, Winklhofer S, Schwendener N, et al. Mono-energetic computed tomography reconstructions reduce beam hardening artifacts from dental restorations. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2013;9:327–32.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H, et al. Characterization of urinary stones with dual-energy CT: improved differentiation using a tin filter. Investig Radiol. 2010;45:1–6.CrossRef

30.

Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:1424–9.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Zhou C, Zhao YE, Luo S, et al. Monoenergetic imaging of dual-energy CT reduces artifacts from implanted metal orthopedic devices in patients with factures. Acad Radiol. 2011;18:1252–7.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Meinel FG, Bischoff B, Zhang Q, Bamberg F, Reiser MF, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Investig Radiol. 2012;47:406–14.CrossRef

33.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Meyers CR, Blesh TE. Measurement in physical education. New York: Ronald Press; 1962.

35.

Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Osterhoff G, et al. Metallic artifact reduction with mono-energetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:2357–64.PubMedCrossRef

36.

White LM, Buckwalter KA. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 1977;6:5–17.CrossRef

Title: Value of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) for artefact reduction from metallic orthopedic implants in post-mortem studies
Authors: Laura Filograna
Nicola Magarelli
Antonio Leone
Roman Guggenberger
Sebastian Winklhofer
Michael John Thali
Lorenzo Bonomo
Publication date: 01-09-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Skeletal Radiology / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2155-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Value of monoenergetic dual-energy CT (DECT) for artefact reduction from metallic orthopedic implants in post-mortem studies

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

An aggressive case of pseudomyogenic haemangioendothelioma of bone with pathological fracture and rapidly progressive pulmonary metastatic disease: case report and review of the literature

Perineural spread in pelvic malignancies can be an alternate explanation for pelvic bony metastases rather than hematogenous spread. A report of two cases

Traumatic fracture through the neurocentral synchondroses of L3 vertebra in a 5-year-old child

AMSIG Auckland, New Zealand, 2015 Scientific Paper Presentations

Conventional versus virtual radiographs of the injured pelvis and acetabulum

Fluoroscopy-guided infiltration for pain reduction in patients with Baastrup’s disease: clinical experience and results