scholarly journals Dosimetric impact of using a commercial metal artifact reduction tool in carbon ion therapy in patients with hip prostheses

Author(s):  
Jingfang Zhao ◽  
Weiwei Wang ◽  
Kambiz Shahnaz ◽  
Xianwei Wu ◽  
Jingfang Mao ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 214 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tugce Agirlar Trabzonlu ◽  
Martha Terrazas ◽  
Amirhossein Mozaffary ◽  
Yuri S. Velichko ◽  
Vahid Yaghmai

2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (11) ◽  
pp. 691-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lifeng Yu ◽  
Hua Li ◽  
Jan Mueller ◽  
James M. Kofler ◽  
Xin Liu ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Boos ◽  
Lino Morris Sawicki ◽  
Rotem Shlomo Lanzman ◽  
Christoph Thomas ◽  
Joel Aissa ◽  
...  

Background Artifacts from metallic implants can hinder image interpretation in computed tomography (CT). Image quality can be improved using metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques. Purpose To evaluate the impact of a MAR algorithm on image quality of CT examinations in comparison to filtered back projection (FBP) in patients with hip prostheses. Material and Methods Twenty-two patients with 25 hip prostheses who underwent clinical abdominopelvic CT on a 64-row CT were included in this retrospective study. Axial images were reconstructed with FBP and five increasing MAR levels (M30–34). Objective artifact strength (OAS) (SIart-SInorm) was assessed by region of interest (ROI) measurements in position of the strongest artifact (SIart) and in an osseous structure without artifact (SInorm) (in Hounsfield units [HU]). Two independent readers evaluated subjective image quality regarding metallic hardware, delineation of bone, adjacent muscle, and pelvic organs on a 5-point scale (1, non-diagnostic; 5, excellent image quality). Artifacts in the near field, far field, and newly induced artifacts due to the MAR technique were analyzed. Results OAS values were: M34: 243.8 ± 155.4 HU; M33: 294.3 ± 197.8 HU; M32: 340.5 ± 210.1 HU; M31: 393.6 ± 225.2 HU; M30: 446.8 ± 224.2 HU and FBP: 528.9 ± 227.7 HU. OAS values were significantly lower for M32–34 compared to FBP ( P < 0.01). For overall subjective image quality, results were: FBP, 2.0 ± 0.2; M30, 2.3 ± 0.8; M31, 2.6 ± 0.5; M32, 3.0 ± 0.6; M33, 3.5 ± 0.6; and M34, 3.8 ± 0.4 ( P < 0.001 for M30–M34 vs. FBP, respectively). Increasing MAR levels resulted in new artifacts in 17% of reconstructions. Conclusion The investigated MAR algorithm led to a significant reduction of artifacts from metallic hip implants. The highest MAR level provided the least severe artifacts and the best overall image quality.


2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1238-1247 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Zhao ◽  
D.D. Robeltson ◽  
G. Wang ◽  
B. Whiting ◽  
K.T. Bae

2014 ◽  
Vol 203 (4) ◽  
pp. 788-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Chol Han ◽  
Yong Eun Chung ◽  
Young Han Lee ◽  
Kwan Kyu Park ◽  
Myeong Jin Kim ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 625-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichiro Yasaka ◽  
Eriko Maeda ◽  
Shouhei Hanaoka ◽  
Masaki Katsura ◽  
Jiro Sato ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 828-834 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Higashigaito ◽  
Florian Angst ◽  
Val M. Runge ◽  
Hatem Alkadhi ◽  
Olivio F. Donati

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document