Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

CT metal artefact reduction for internal fixation of the proximal humerus: Value of mono-energetic extrapolation from dual-energy and iterative reconstructions


Winklhofer, S; Benninger, E; Spross, C; Morsbach, F; Rahm, S; Ross, S; Jost, B; Thali, M J; Stolzmann, P; Alkadhi, H; Guggenberger, R (2014). CT metal artefact reduction for internal fixation of the proximal humerus: Value of mono-energetic extrapolation from dual-energy and iterative reconstructions. Clinical Radiology, 69(5):e199-206.

Abstract

AIM: To assess the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and an iterative frequency split-normalized metal artefact reduction (IFS-MAR) algorithm compared to filtered back projections (FBP) from single-energy CT (SECT) for artefact reduction in internally fixated humeral fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six internally fixated cadaveric humeri were examined using SECT and DECT. Data were reconstructed using FBP, IFS-MAR, and mono-energetic DECT extrapolations. Image analysis included radiodensity values and qualitative evaluation of artefacts, image quality, and level of confidence for localizing screw tips.
RESULTS: Radiodensity values of streak artefacts were significantly different (p < 0.05) between FBP (-104 ± 222) and IFS-MAR (73 ± 122), and between FBP and DECT (32 ± 151), without differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). Compared to FBP, qualitative artefacts were significantly reduced using IFS-MAR (p < 0.001) and DECT (p < 0.05), without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.219). Image quality significantly (p = 0.016) improved for IFS-MAR and DECT compared to FBP, without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). The level of confidence for screw tip localization was assessed as best for DECT in all cases.
CONCLUSION: Both IFS-MAR in SECT and mono-energetic DECT produce improved image quality and a reduction of metal artefacts. Screw tip positions can be most confidently assessed using DECT.

Abstract

AIM: To assess the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and an iterative frequency split-normalized metal artefact reduction (IFS-MAR) algorithm compared to filtered back projections (FBP) from single-energy CT (SECT) for artefact reduction in internally fixated humeral fractures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six internally fixated cadaveric humeri were examined using SECT and DECT. Data were reconstructed using FBP, IFS-MAR, and mono-energetic DECT extrapolations. Image analysis included radiodensity values and qualitative evaluation of artefacts, image quality, and level of confidence for localizing screw tips.
RESULTS: Radiodensity values of streak artefacts were significantly different (p < 0.05) between FBP (-104 ± 222) and IFS-MAR (73 ± 122), and between FBP and DECT (32 ± 151), without differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). Compared to FBP, qualitative artefacts were significantly reduced using IFS-MAR (p < 0.001) and DECT (p < 0.05), without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.219). Image quality significantly (p = 0.016) improved for IFS-MAR and DECT compared to FBP, without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). The level of confidence for screw tip localization was assessed as best for DECT in all cases.
CONCLUSION: Both IFS-MAR in SECT and mono-energetic DECT produce improved image quality and a reduction of metal artefacts. Screw tip positions can be most confidently assessed using DECT.

Statistics

Citations

12 citations in Web of Science®
13 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Legal Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:340 Law
610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2014
Deposited On:19 Mar 2014 09:04
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 17:44
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0009-9260
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.12.011
PubMed ID:24582174

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher