Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Imaging
Published in: BMC Medical Imaging 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Computed Tomography | Technical advance

Metal artifacts in intraoperative O-arm CBCT scans

Authors: Juha I. Peltonen, Touko Kaasalainen, Mika Kortesniemi

Published in: BMC Medical Imaging | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become an increasingly important medical imaging modality in orthopedic operating rooms. Metal implants and related image artifacts create challenges for image quality optimization in CBCT. The purpose of this study was to develop a robust and quantitative method for the comprehensive determination of metal artifacts in novel CBCT applications.

Methods

The image quality of an O-arm CBCT device was assessed with an anthropomorphic pelvis phantom in the presence of metal implants. Three different kilovoltage and two different exposure settings were used to scan the phantom both with and without the presence of metal rods.

Results

The amount of metal artifact was related to the applied CBCT imaging protocol parameters. The size of the artifact was moderate with all imaging settings. The highest applied kilovoltage and exposure level distinctly increased artifact severity.

Conclusions

The developed method offers a practical and robust way to quantify metal artifacts in CBCT. Changes in imaging parameters may have nonlinear effects on image quality which are not anticipated based on physics.
Literature
1.
Holly LT, Foley KT. Three-dimensional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement. J Neurosurg. 2009;99:324–9.
2.
Acosta FL Jr, Thompson TL, Campbell S, Weinstein PR, Ames CP. Use of intraoperative isocentric C-arm 3D fluoroscopy for sextant percutaneous pedicle screw placement: case report and review of the literature. Spine J. 2005;5:339–43.CrossRef
3.
Bledsoe JM, Fenton D, Fogelson JL, Nottmeier EW. Accuracy of upper thoracic pedicle screw placement using three-dimensional image guidance. Spine J. 2009;9:817–21.CrossRef
4.
Nottmeier EW, Pirris SM, Edwards S, Kimes S, Bowman C, Nelson KL. Operating room radiation exposure in cone beam computed tomography-based, image-guided spinal surgery. J Neurosurg. 2013;19:226–31.
5.
Mason A, Paulsen R, Babuska JM, et al. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems: a systematic review. J Neurosurg. 2014;20:196–203.
6.
Kleck CJ, Cullilmore I, LaFleur M, et al. A new 3-dimensional method for measuring precision in surgical navigation and methods to optimize navigation accuracy. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:1764–74.CrossRef
7.
Dea N, Fisher CG, Batke J, et al. Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT-based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: a patient-level data cost-effectiveness analysis. Spine J. 2016;16:23–31.CrossRef
8.
Rivkin MA, Yocom SS. Thoracolumbar instrumentation with CT-guided navigation (O-arm) in 270 consecutive patients: accuracy rates and lessons learned. Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36:E7.CrossRef
9.
Ryang YM, Villard J, Obermuller T, et al. Learning curve of 3D fluoroscopy image-guided pedicle screw placement in the thoracolumbar spine. Spine J. 2015;15:467–76.CrossRef
10.
Costa F, Tosi G, Attuat L, et al. Radiation exposure in spine surgery using an image-guided system based on intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography: analysis of 107 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg. 2016;25:654–9.
11.
Su AW, Luo TD, McIntosh AL, et al. Switching to a pediatric dose O-arm protocol in spine surgery significantly reduced patient radiation exposure. J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36:621–6.CrossRef
12.
Su AW, McIntosh AL, Schueler BA, et al. How does patient radiation exposure compare with low-dose o-arm versus fluoroscopy for pedicle screw placement in idiopathic scoliosis? J Pediatr Orthops. 2017;37:171–7.CrossRef
13.
Abul-Kasim K, Söderberg M, Selariu E, Gunnarsson M, Kherad M, Ohlin A. Optimization of radiation exposure and image quality of the cone-beam O-arm intraoperative imaging system in spinal surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012;25:52–8.CrossRef
14.
Schouten R, Lee R, Boyd M, et al. Intra-operative cone-beam CT (O-arm) and stereotactic navigation in acute spinal trauma surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;9:1137–43.CrossRef
15.
Qureshi S, Lu Y, McAnany S, Baird E. Three-dimensional intraoperative imaging modalities in orthopaedic surgery: a narrative review. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22:800–9.CrossRef
16.
Riis J, Lehman RR, Perera RA, et al. A retrospective comparison of intraoperative CT and fluoroscopy evaluating radiation exposure in posterior spinal fusions for scoliosis. Patient Saf Surg. 2017;11:32.CrossRef
17.
Boas FE, Fleischmann D. CT artifacts: causes and reduction techniques. Imaging Med. 2012;4:229–40.CrossRef
18.
Tang X, Krupinski EA, Xie H, Stillman AE. On the data acquisition, image reconstruction, cone beam artifacts and their suppression in axial MDCT and CBCT–A review. Med Phys. 2018;45:e761–82.CrossRef
19.
Katisko JP, Kauppinen MT, Koivukangas JP, Heikkinen ER. Stereotactic operations using the o-arm. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2012;90:401–9.CrossRef
20.
Sharma M, Deogaonkar M. Accuracy and safety of targeting using intraoperative “O-arm” during placement of deep brain stimulation electrodes without electrophysiological recordings. J Clin Neurosc. 2016;27:80–6.CrossRef
21.
22.
International Electrotechnical Commission, Medical electrical equipment - Part 2–44: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of X-ray equipment for computed tomography, IEC 60601—2-–44:2009+AMD1:2012+AMD2:2016 CSV Consolidated version, Edition 3.2, IEC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2016, 276 pages
23.
Pieper S, Halle M, Kikinis R. 3D Slicer. Proceedings from the 2004 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. Macro to. NANO. 2004;2:632–5.
Metadata
Title
Metal artifacts in intraoperative O-arm CBCT scans
Authors
Juha I. Peltonen
Touko Kaasalainen
Mika Kortesniemi
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2342
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-020-00538-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Medical Imaging 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research article

A new machine learning approach for predicting likelihood of recurrence following ablation for atrial fibrillation from CT

Research article

Differentiation of brain metastases from small and non-small lung cancers using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps

Research

Hahn-PCNN-CNN: an end-to-end multi-modal brain medical image fusion framework useful for clinical diagnosis

Research article

Quick evaluation of lower leg ischemia in patients with peripheral arterial disease by time maximum intensity projection CT angiography: a pilot study

Research

Comparison of bone single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT and bone scintigraphy in assessing knee joints

Research

Correlation and agreement between superb micro-vascular imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for assessing radiofrequency ablation treatment of thyroid nodules: a preliminary study