Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Metal Artifact Reduction in Pelvic Computed Tomography With Hip Prostheses: Comparison of Virtual Monoenergetic Extrapolations From Dual-Energy Computed Tomography and an Iterative Metal Artifact Reduction Algorithm in a Phantom Study

Higashigaito, Kai MD; Angst, Florian MD; Runge, Val M. MD; Alkadhi, Hatem MD, MPH, EBCR; Donati, Olivio F. MD

doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000191
Original Articles

Objective: The aim of this study was to directly compare metal artifact reduction (MAR) of virtual monoenergetic extrapolations (VMEs) from dual-energy computed tomography (CT) with iterative MAR (iMAR) from single energy in pelvic CT with hip prostheses.

Materials and Methods: A human pelvis phantom with unilateral or bilateral metal inserts of different material (steel and titanium) was scanned with third-generation dual-source CT using single (120 kVp) and dual-energy (100/150 kVp) at similar radiation dose (CT dose index, 7.15 mGy). Three image series for each phantom configuration were reconstructed: uncorrected, VME, and iMAR. Two independent, blinded radiologists assessed image quality quantitatively (noise and attenuation) and subjectively (5-point Likert scale). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cohen κ were calculated to evaluate interreader agreements. Repeated measures analysis of variance and Friedman test were used to compare quantitative and qualitative image quality. Post hoc testing was performed using a corrected (Bonferroni) P < 0.017.

Results: Agreements between readers were high for noise (all, ICC ≥ 0.975) and attenuation (all, ICC ≥ 0.986); agreements for qualitative assessment were good to perfect (all, κ ≥ 0.678). Compared with uncorrected images, VME showed significant noise reduction in the phantom with titanium only (P < 0.017), and iMAR showed significantly lower noise in all regions and phantom configurations (all, P < 0.017). In all phantom configurations, deviations of attenuation were smallest in images reconstructed with iMAR. For VME, there was a tendency toward higher subjective image quality in phantoms with titanium compared with uncorrected images, however, without reaching statistical significance (P > 0.017). Subjective image quality was rated significantly higher for images reconstructed with iMAR than for uncorrected images in all phantom configurations (all, P < 0.017).

Conclusions: Iterative MAR showed better MAR capabilities than VME in settings with bilateral hip prosthesis or unilateral steel prosthesis. In settings with unilateral hip prosthesis made of titanium, VME and iMAR performed similarly well.

From the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Received for publication April 16, 2015; and accepted for publication, after revision, May 20, 2015.

Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared.

Supplemental digital contents are available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site (www.investigativeradiology.com).

Correspondence to: Hatem Alkadhi, MD, MPH, EBCR, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: Hatem.Alkadhi@usz.ch.

Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.