Metal artefact suppression at 3 T MRI: comparison of MAVRIC-SL with conventional fast spin echo sequences in patients with Hip joint arthroplasty

Kretzschmar, Martin; Nardo, Lorenzo; Han, Misung; Heilmeier, Ursula; Sam, Craig; Joseph, Gabby B.; Koch, Kevin M.; Krug, Roland; Link, Thomas M.

doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3628-0

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A 5-point grading system was used to evaluate the following anatomical structures [13]: greater trochanter, lesser trochanter, femoral head and neck, acetabulum, sciatic nerve and iliopsoas muscles. A grade of (5) was defined as good delineation of anatomic structures; grade (4) as anatomic structure fully visible with slight blurring of borders; grade (3) as anatomic structure fully visible but significant blurring of borders; grade (2) as anatomic structure only partially visible, and grade (1) as anatomic structure not visible.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Image quality was visually assessed in regard to signal-tonoise ratio, blurring, spatial resolution and contrast; again a 5-grade quality score was used [13,15]. Figure 2 provides an example of good image quality.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2), 3=distortion mildly altering anatomic contours, 2= distortion severely impairing anatomic evaluation near the metal implant and 1=distortion making anatomic evaluation of structures surrounding the implant impossible. In addition, the extent of the artifact was defined as the area of severe signal loss that obscured any anatomic information [13]. It was measured on the slice with the maximum extent of artifact in two dimensions (square centimeter, cm 2 ) as demonstrated in Fig.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Osteolysis was defined as endosteal, intracortical, or non-linear cancellous bone destruction detected as high signal intensity in fluid sensitive sequence (Fig. 4) [13]. Insertion tendinopathy demonstrated signal alteration within the insertion of the gluteal muscles at the greater tuberosity with thickening of the muscle tendons.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, with the increasing use of 3.0 T magnetic field strength for musculoskeletal imaging applications, several studies have also aimed at showing feasibility of these techniques at 3.0 T [13,14]. Two previous studies have demonstrated that effective metal artifact reduction was possible at both 1.5 and 3.0 T, but it was performed in vitro using animal specimens [14,15]; however, to the best of our knowledge to date no study was published directly comparing MAVRIC imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T in vivo in the same patients with hip prosthesis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Imaging near orthopedic hardware

Koff

Burge

Koch

et al. 2017

J. Magn. Reson. Imaging

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over one million total joint replacement surgeries were performed in the US in 2013 alone, and this number is expected to more than double by 2030. Traditional imaging techniques for post-operative evaluation of implanted devices, such as radiography, computerized tomography or ultrasound utilize ionizing radiation, suffer from beam hardening artifact, or lack the inherent high contrast necessary to adequately evaluate soft tissues around the implants, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), due to its ability to generate multi-planar, high contrast images without the use of ionizing radiation is ideal for evaluating peri-prosthetic soft tissues but has traditionally suffered from in-plane and through-plane data misregistration due to the magnetic susceptibility of implanted materials. A recent renaissance in the interest of imaging near arthroplasty and implanted orthopaedic hardware has led to the development of new techniques which help to mitigate the effects of magnetic susceptibility. This paper will describe the challenges of performing imaging near implanted orthopaedic hardware, how to generate clinically interpretable images when imaging near implanted devices, and how the images may be interpreted for clinical use. We will also describe current developments of utilizing MRI to evaluate implanted orthopaedic hardware.

show abstract

Advances in MRI around metal

Jungmann

Agten

Pfirrmann

et al. 2017

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

161

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Metal artefact suppression at 3 T MRI: comparison of MAVRIC-SL with conventional fast spin echo sequences in patients with Hip joint arthroplasty

Abstract: • Metal artefacts compromise imaging of total hip replacement with MRI. • Metal artefacts are aggravated with 3 Tesla MRI. • MAVRIC-SL is a technique to suppress metal artefacts. • MAVRIC-SL effectively reduces metal artefacts at 3 Tesla and improves diagnostic quality.

Cited by 24 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Imaging near orthopedic hardware

Advances in MRI around metal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About