Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Skeletal Radiology 3/2015

01-03-2015 | Scientific Article

Evaluation of metal artifacts in clinical MR images of patients with total hip arthroplasty using different metal artifact-reducing sequences

Authors: Gunilla M. Müller, Björn Lundin, Thord von Schewelov, Markus F. Müller, Olle Ekberg, Sven Månsson

Published in: Skeletal Radiology | Issue 3/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the distortion and artifact area of metal in MR images and to compare artifact reduction using different metal artifact-reducing sequences in patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) and non-MoM total hip prostheses.

Materials and methods

Thirty-six MoM and 15 non-MoM prostheses were examined in a 1.5-T MR scanner using T1-weighted (T1-w) sequences: turbo spin echo (TSE) high-readout bandwidth (hiBW), T1-w; TSE view angle tilting (VAT), T1-w; TSE VAT + slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC); short tau inversion recovery (STIR) hiBW or matched RF pulses (mRFp). Distortion was quantified using a new method measuring the acetabular roof angle (ARA). The artifact area was defined in the mid-coronal plane of the artifact.

Results

The T1 VAT + SEMAC sequence showed the least distortion compared to T1 VAT and T1-hiBW (150°, 127° and 102°, p < 0.001, in MoM; 152°, 143° and 128°, p ≤ 0.014, in non-MoM). The artifact area was smaller in MoM prostheses using the T1 VAT sequence compared to T1 hiBW and T1 VAT + SEMAC (2506 mm2, 3160 mm2 and 3214 mm2, p < 0.001) and smaller in non-MoM prostheses using T1 VAT compared to T1-hiBW (4296 mm2 and 4831 mm2, p = 0.041). STIR-mRFp substantially reduced the artifact size compared with STIR-hiBW (MoM 4559 mm2 and 6323 mm2; non-MoM 5625 mm2 and 8764 mm2, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Metal artifacts in MR imaging examinations of hip prostheses can be evaluated for distortion using a distortion angle (ARA) and the degree of signal artifact as determined by measuring the largest cross-sectional artifact area. T1 VAT + SEMAC showed the least distortion; T1 VAT and STIR-mRFp were most efficient for reduction of the artifact area.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:547–55.PubMedCrossRef Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:547–55.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference 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 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
3.
go back to reference Lee MJ, Janzen DL, Munk PL, MacKay A, Xiang QS, McGowen A. 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, MacKay A, Xiang QS, McGowen A. 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
4.
go back to reference Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati EA. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:1947–54.PubMed Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati EA. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:1947–54.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH, et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1207–13.PubMedCrossRef Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH, et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1207–13.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M, et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology. 2000;215:254–62.PubMedCrossRef White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M, et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology. 2000;215:254–62.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK. Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys. 1988;15:7–11.PubMedCrossRef Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK. Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys. 1988;15:7–11.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics. 2000;20:699–712.PubMedCrossRef Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics. 2000;20:699–712.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
go back to reference Sutter R, Ulbrich EJ, Jellus V, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW. Reduction of metal artifacts in patients with total hip arthroplasty with slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;265:204–14.PubMedCrossRef Sutter R, Ulbrich EJ, Jellus V, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW. Reduction of metal artifacts in patients with total hip arthroplasty with slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;265:204–14.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of metal artifacts in clinical MR images of patients with total hip arthroplasty using different metal artifact-reducing sequences
Authors
Gunilla M. Müller
Björn Lundin
Thord von Schewelov
Markus F. Müller
Olle Ekberg
Sven Månsson
Publication date
01-03-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Skeletal Radiology / Issue 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-2051-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2015

Skeletal Radiology 3/2015 Go to the issue