nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.11.2015 | Scientific Article

Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla

verfasst von: Lorenzo Nardo, Misung Han, Martin Kretschmar, Michele Guindani, Kevin Koch, Thomas Vail, Roland Krug, Thomas M. Link

Erschienen in: Skeletal Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

This work aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of a metal artifact suppression sequence (MAVRIC-SL) for imaging of hip arthroplasties (HA) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla (T) field strength.

Methods

Eighteen patients (10 females; aged 27–74) with HA were examined at 3.0 and 1.5 T within 3 weeks. The sequence protocol included 3D-MAVRIC-SL PD (coronal), 3D-MAVRIC-SL STIR (axial), FSE T1, FSE PD and STIR sequences. Anatomical structures and pathological findings were assessed independently by two radiologists. Artifact extent and technical quality (image quality, fat saturation and geometric distortion) were also evaluated. Findings at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Results

While image quality was better at 1.5 T, visualization of anatomic structures and clinical abnormalities was not significantly different using the two field strengths (p > 0.05). Fat suppression and amount of artifacts were significantly better at 1.5 T (p < 0.01). Inter- and intra-reader agreement for different anatomic details, image quality and visualization of abnormalities ranged from k = 0.62 to k = 1.00.

Conclusion

MAVRIC-SL at 1.5 T had a comparable diagnostic performance when compared MAVRIC-SL at 3.0 T; however, the higher field strength was associated with larger artifacts, limited image quality and worse fat saturation.

Shan L, Shan B, Graham D, Saxena A. Total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis on mid-term quality of life. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014;22(3):389–406.CrossRefPubMed

Singh JA. Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:80–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2007;89(4):780–5.CrossRef

Iorio R, Healy WL, Warren PD, Appleby D. Lateral trochanteric pain following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(2):233–6.CrossRef

Vicar AJ, Coleman CR. A comparison of the anterolateral, transtrochanteric, and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;188:152–9.PubMed

Saito S, Ryu J, Oikawa H, Honda T. Clinical results of Harris-Galante total hip arthroplasty without cement: follow-up study of over five years. Bulletin. 1997;56(4):191–6.

Blankenbaker DG, Ullrick SR, Davis KW, De Smet AA, Haaland B, Fine JP. Correlation of MRI findings with clinical findings of trochanteric pain syndrome. Skelet Radiol. 2008;37(10):903–9.CrossRef

Thomas MS, Wimhurst JA, Nolan JF, Toms AP. Imaging metal-on-metal hip replacements: the Norwich experience. HSS J. 2013;9(3):247–56.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Olsen RV, Munk PL, Lee MJ, Janzen DL, MacKay AL, Xiang QS, et al. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics. 2000;20(3):699–712.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: slice encoding for metal artifact correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62(1):66–76.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

11.

Koch KM, Lorbiecki JE, Hinks RS, King KF. A multispectral three-dimensional acquisition technique for imaging near metal implants. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(2):381–90.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Koch KM, Brau AC, Chen W, Gold GE, Hargreaves BA, Koff M, et al. Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC-SEMAC hybrid. Magn Reson Med. 2011;65(1):71–82.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kretzschmar M, Nardo L, Han MM, Heilmeier U, Sam C, Joseph GB, et al. Metal artefact suppression at 3 T MRI: comparison of MAVRIC-SL with conventional fast spin echo sequences in patients with hip joint arthroplasty. European Radiol. 2015.

14.

Choi SJ, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Stevens KJ, Gold GE. Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(1):140–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

15.

Liebl H, Heilmeier U, Lee S, Nardo L, Patsch J, Schuppert C, et al. In vitro assessment of knee MRI in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014.

16.

Yanny S, Cahir JG, Barker T, Wimhurst J, Nolan JF, Goodwin RW, et al. MRI of aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis-associated lesions in metal-on-metal hip replacements. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(6):1394–402.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lee YH, Lim D, Kim E, Kim S, Song HT, Suh JS. Usefulness of slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) for reducing metallic artifacts in 3-T MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;31(5):703–6.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Garwood M, Ugurbil K, Rath AR, Bendall MR, Ross BD, Mitchell SL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging with adiabatic pulses using a single surface coil for RF transmission and signal detection. Magn Reson Med. 1989;9(1):25–34.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Del Grande F, Santini F, Herzka DA, Aro MR, Dean CW, Gold GE, et al. Fat-suppression techniques for 3-T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system. Radiographics. 2014;34(1):217–33.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

20.

Graf H, Steidle G, Martirosian P, Lauer UA, Schick F. Effects on MRI due to altered rf polarization near conductive implants or instruments. Med Phys. 2006;33(1):124–7.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(3):433–7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Farrelly C, Davarpanah A, Brennan SA, Sampson M, Eustace SJ. Imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware: comparison of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(1):W60–4.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla
verfasst von: Lorenzo Nardo
Misung Han
Martin Kretschmar
Michele Guindani
Kevin Koch
Thomas Vail
Roland Krug
Thomas M. Link
Publikationsdatum: 01.11.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Skeletal Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0364-2348
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2161
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-015-2214-5

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Metal artifact suppression at the hip: diagnostic performance at 3.0 T versus 1.5 Tesla