Advanced

Visual grading evaluation of commercially available metal artefact reduction techniques in hip prosthesis computed tomography

Andersson, Karin M.; Norrman, Eva; Geijer, Håkan; Krauss, Wolfgang; Cao, Yang; Jendeberg, Johan; Geijer, Mats LU ; Lidén, Mats and Thunberg, Per (2016) In British Journal of Radiology 89(1063).
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate metal artefact reduction (MAR) techniques from four CT vendors in hip prosthesis imaging. Methods: Bilateral hip prosthesis phantom images, obtained by using MAR algorithms for single-energy CT data or dual-energy CT (DECT) data and by monoenergetic reconstructions of DECT data, were visually graded by five radiologists using 10 image quality criteria. Comparisons between the MAR images and a reference image were performed for each scanner separately. Ordinal probit regression analysis was used. Results: The MAR algorithms in general improved the image quality based on the majority of the criteria (up to between 8/10 and 10/10) with a statistical improvement in overall image quality (p<0.001). However,... (More)

Objective: To evaluate metal artefact reduction (MAR) techniques from four CT vendors in hip prosthesis imaging. Methods: Bilateral hip prosthesis phantom images, obtained by using MAR algorithms for single-energy CT data or dual-energy CT (DECT) data and by monoenergetic reconstructions of DECT data, were visually graded by five radiologists using 10 image quality criteria. Comparisons between the MAR images and a reference image were performed for each scanner separately. Ordinal probit regression analysis was used. Results: The MAR algorithms in general improved the image quality based on the majority of the criteria (up to between 8/10 and 10/10) with a statistical improvement in overall image quality (p<0.001). However, degradation of image quality, such as new artefacts, was seen in some cases. A few monoenergetic reconstruction series improved the image quality (p<0.004) for one of the DECT scanners, but it was only improved for some of the criteria (up to 5/10). Monoenergetic reconstructions resulted in worse image quality for the majority of the criteria (up to 7/10) for the other DECT scanner. Conclusion: The MAR algorithms improved the image quality of the hip prosthesis CT images. However, since additional artefacts and degradation of image quality were seen in some cases, all algorithms should be carefully evaluated for every clinical situation. Monoenergetic reconstructions were in general concluded to be insufficient for reducing metal artefacts. Advances in knowledge: Qualitative evaluation of the usefulness of several MAR techniques from different vendors in CT imaging of hip prosthesis.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
British Journal of Radiology
volume
89
issue
1063
publisher
British Inst Radiology
external identifiers
  • scopus:84989352315
  • wos:000378096400009
ISSN
0007-1285
DOI
10.1259/bjr.20150993
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
90595803-5b2a-4b2e-abd1-ae893d7a5c70
date added to LUP
2016-11-03 15:45:57
date last changed
2017-09-24 05:02:41
@article{90595803-5b2a-4b2e-abd1-ae893d7a5c70,
  abstract     = {<p>Objective: To evaluate metal artefact reduction (MAR) techniques from four CT vendors in hip prosthesis imaging. Methods: Bilateral hip prosthesis phantom images, obtained by using MAR algorithms for single-energy CT data or dual-energy CT (DECT) data and by monoenergetic reconstructions of DECT data, were visually graded by five radiologists using 10 image quality criteria. Comparisons between the MAR images and a reference image were performed for each scanner separately. Ordinal probit regression analysis was used. Results: The MAR algorithms in general improved the image quality based on the majority of the criteria (up to between 8/10 and 10/10) with a statistical improvement in overall image quality (p&lt;0.001). However, degradation of image quality, such as new artefacts, was seen in some cases. A few monoenergetic reconstruction series improved the image quality (p&lt;0.004) for one of the DECT scanners, but it was only improved for some of the criteria (up to 5/10). Monoenergetic reconstructions resulted in worse image quality for the majority of the criteria (up to 7/10) for the other DECT scanner. Conclusion: The MAR algorithms improved the image quality of the hip prosthesis CT images. However, since additional artefacts and degradation of image quality were seen in some cases, all algorithms should be carefully evaluated for every clinical situation. Monoenergetic reconstructions were in general concluded to be insufficient for reducing metal artefacts. Advances in knowledge: Qualitative evaluation of the usefulness of several MAR techniques from different vendors in CT imaging of hip prosthesis.</p>},
  articleno    = {20150993},
  author       = {Andersson, Karin M. and Norrman, Eva and Geijer, Håkan and Krauss, Wolfgang and Cao, Yang and Jendeberg, Johan and Geijer, Mats and Lidén, Mats and Thunberg, Per},
  issn         = {0007-1285},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1063},
  publisher    = {British Inst Radiology},
  series       = {British Journal of Radiology},
  title        = {Visual grading evaluation of commercially available metal artefact reduction techniques in hip prosthesis computed tomography},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150993},
  volume       = {89},
  year         = {2016},
}