Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels

  • Musculoskeletal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate optimal monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) settings for artefact reduction of posterior spinal fusion implants of various vendors and spine levels.

Methods

Posterior spinal fusion implants of five vendors for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine were examined ex vivo with single-energy (SE) CT (120 kVp) and DECT (140/100 kVp). Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimised image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Two independent radiologists assessed quantitative and qualitative image parameters for each device and spine level.

Results

Inter-reader agreements of quantitative and qualitative parameters were high (ICC = 0.81–1.00, κ = 0.54–0.77). HU values of spinal fusion implants were significantly different among vendors (P < 0.001), spine levels (P < 0.01) and among SECT, monoenergetic DECT of 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and OPTkeV (P < 0.01). Image quality was significantly (P < 0.001) different between datasets and improved with higher monoenergies of DECT compared with SECT (V = 0.58, P < 0.001). Artefacts decreased significantly (V = 0.51, P < 0.001) at higher monoenergies. OPTkeV values ranged from 123–141 keV. OPTkeV according to vendor and spine level are presented herein.

Conclusions

Monoenergetic DECT provides significantly better image quality and less metallic artefacts from implants than SECT. Use of individual keV values for vendor and spine level is recommended.

Key Points

• Artefacts pose problems for CT following posterior spinal fusion implants.

• CT images are interpreted better with monoenergetic extrapolation using dual-energy (DE) CT.

• DECT extrapolation improves image quality and reduces metallic artefacts over SECT.

• There were considerable differences in monoenergy values among vendors and spine levels.

• Use of individualised monoenergy values is indicated for different metallic hardware devices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ponnusamy KE, Iyer S, Gupta G, Khanna AJ (2011) Instrumentation of the osteoporotic spine: biomechanical and clinical considerations. Spine J 11:54–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng JS, Lee MJ, Massicotte E et al (2011) Clinical guidelines and payer policies on fusion for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:S144–S163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Willems P, de Bie R, Oner C, Castelein R, de Kleuver M (2011) Clinical decision making in spinal fusion for chronic low back pain. Results of a nationwide survey among spine surgeons. BMJ Open 1:e000391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wood KB, Fritzell P, Dettori JR, Hashimoto R, Lund T, Shaffrey C (2011) Effectiveness of spinal fusion versus structured rehabilitation in chronic low back pain patients with and without isthmic spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:S110–S119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sucato DJ (2010) Management of severe spinal deformity: scoliosis and kyphosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:2186–2192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Young PM, Berquist TH, Bancroft LW, Peterson JJ (2007) Complications of spinal instrumentation. Radiographics 27:775–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Murtagh RD, Quencer RM, Castellvi AE, Yue JJ (2011) New techniques in lumbar spinal instrumentation: what the radiologist needs to know. Radiology 260:317–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Douglas-Akinwande AC, Buckwalter KA, Rydberg J, Rankin JL, Choplin RH (2006) Multichannel CT: evaluating the spine in postoperative patients with orthopedic hardware. Radiographics 26:S97–S110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrett JF, Keat N (2004) Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics 24:1679–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Buckwalter KA, Parr JA, Choplin RH, Capello WN (2006) Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 10:86–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kachelriess M, Watzke O, Kalender WA (2001) Generalized multi-dimensional adaptive filtering for conventional and spiral single-slice, multi-slice, and cone-beam CT. Med Phys 28:475–490

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Veldkamp WJ, Joemai RM, van der Molen AJ, Geleijns J (2010) Development and validation of segmentation and interpolation techniques in sinograms for metal artifact suppression in CT. Med Phys 37:620–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Flohr TG, McCollough CH, Bruder H et al (2006) First performance evaluation of a dual-source CT (DSCT) system. Eur Radiol 16:256–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu H, Zeng K, Bharkhada DK et al (2007) A segmentation-based method for metal artifact reduction. Acad Radiol 14:495–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR (2011) Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 21:1424–1429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhou C, Zhao YE, Luo S et al (2011) Monoenergetic imaging of dual-energy CT reduces artifacts from implanted metal orthopedic devices in patients with factures. Acad Radiol 18:1252–1257

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Menze M (2009) Spine revenues up 11.1%. New trend? In: Pearldiver technologies. S. Ellison. Available via http://www.pearldiverinc.com/pdi/articles.jsp?q=/var/www/html/pearldiver/market/spine/html/Spine-Revenues-Up-11-percent-New-Trend-09-16-09.html&t=Spine+Revenues+Up+11+percent+−+New+Trend?&c=spine

  18. Stolzmann P, Leschka S, Scheffel H et al (2010) Characterization of urinary stones with dual-energy CT: improved differentiation using a tin filter. Invest Radiol 45:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Haramati N, Staron RB, Mazel-Sperling K et al (1994) CT scans through metal scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imaging Graph 18:429–434

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA et al (2007) Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 27:791–803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the product specialists T. Frommenwiler (Braun®), M. Schroeder (DePuy®), A. Gertsch (Medtronic®) and G. Guaresi (Stryker®) for their support, and all participating vendors (including Synthes®) for providing us with spinal fusion implants and product specifications.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    R. Guggenberger, S. Winklhofer, G. Andreisek, H. Alkadhi & P. Stolzmann

  2. Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    G. Osterhoff & G. A. Wanner

  3. The Spine Center, Thun, Switzerland

    M. Fortunati

Authors
  1. R. Guggenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Winklhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Osterhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. A. Wanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Fortunati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Andreisek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. Alkadhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P. Stolzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Stolzmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guggenberger, R., Winklhofer, S., Osterhoff, G. et al. Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels. Eur Radiol 22, 2357–2364 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2501-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2501-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation