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 Algorithmin a Phantom Study
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 Algorithmin a Phantom Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/rli.0000000000000191
复制
发表时间：
2015-12-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Donati, Olivio F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Higashigaito, Kai;Angst, Florian;Donati, Olivio F.
目的 本研究的目的是直接比较双能计算机断层扫描 (CT) 虚拟单能外推 (VME) 的金属伪影减少 (MAR) 与髋关节假体盆腔 CT 中单能迭代 MAR (iMAR) 的金属伪影减少 (MAR)。 材料和方法 使用单侧 (120 kVp）和双能（100/150 kVp），辐射剂量相似（CT剂量指数，7.15 mGy）。重建每个体模配置的三个图像系列：未校正、VME 和 iMAR。两名独立、盲法放射科医生定量（噪声和衰减）和主观（5 点李克特量表）评估图像质量。计算组内相关系数 (ICC) 和 Cohen 来评估读者间的一致性。使用重复测量方差分析和弗里德曼检验来比较定量和定性图像质量。使用校正后的 (Bonferroni) P < 0.017 进行事后测试。结果 读者之间对于噪声（全部，ICC 0.975）和衰减（全部，ICC 0.986）的一致性很高；定性评估协议非常完美（全部为 0.678）。与未校正图像相比，VME 在仅含钛的体模中显示出显着的噪声降低（P < 0.017），而 iMAR 在所有区域和体模配置中显示出显着较低的噪声（全部，P < 0.017）。在所有体模配置中，使用 iMAR 重建的图像中的衰减偏差最小。对于 VME，与未校正的图像相比，钛模型的主观图像质量有更高的趋势，但未达到统计显着性 (P > 0.017)。在所有体模配置中，使用 iMAR 重建的图像的主观图像质量明显高于未校正图像（全部，P < 0.017）。 结论 在双侧髋关节假体或单侧钢假体的设置中，迭代 MAR 表现出比 VME 更好的 MAR 功能。在采用钛制成的单侧髋关节假体的情况下，VME 和 iMAR 的表现同样出色。
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 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, 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.