Measuring femoral lesions despite CT metal artefacts: a cadaveric study

ObjectiveComputed tomography is the modality of choice for measuring osteolysis but suffers from metal-induced artefacts obscuring periprosthetic tissues. Previous papers on metal artefact reduction (MAR) show qualitative improvements, but their algorithms have not found acceptance for clinical applications. We investigated to what extent metal artefacts interfere with the segmentation of lesions adjacent to a metal femoral implant and whether metal artefact reduction improves the manual segmentation of such lesions.Materials and methodsWe manually created 27 periprosthetic lesions in 10 human cadaver femora. We filled the lesions with a fibrotic interface tissue substitute. Each femur was fitted with a polished tapered cobalt-chrome prosthesis and imaged twice—once with the metal, and once with a substitute resin prosthesis inserted. Metal-affected CTs were processed using standard back-projection as well as projection interpolation (PI) MAR. Two experienced users segmented all lesions and compared segmentation accuracy.ResultsWe achieved accurate delineation of periprosthetic lesions in the metal-free images. The presence of a metal implant led us to underestimate lesion volume and introduced geometrical errors in segmentation boundaries. Although PI MAR reduced streak artefacts, it led to greater underestimation of lesion volume and greater geometrical errors than without its application.ConclusionCT metal artefacts impair image segmentation. PI MAR can improve subjective image appearance but causes loss of detail and lower image contrast adjacent to prostheses. Our experiments showed that PI MAR is counterproductive for manual segmentation of periprosthetic lesions and should be used with care.

[1]  A. Toms,et al.  CT and MRI of hip arthroplasty. , 2007, Clinical radiology.

[2]  C. Martín-Hervás,et al.  Multislice Computed Tomography for Evaluating Acetabular Defects in Revision THA , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  E. Schwarz,et al.  Use of volumetric computerized tomography as a primary outcome measure to evaluate drug efficacy in the prevention of peri‐prosthetic osteolysis: A 1‐year clinical pilot of etanercept vs. placebo , 2003, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[4]  Angelo Carbone,et al.  Measurement of Bone Defects Adjacent to Acetabular Components of Hip Replacement , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  Wiro J. Niessen,et al.  Hippocampus segmentation in MR images using atlas registration, voxel classification, and graph cuts , 2008, NeuroImage.

[6]  G. Glover,et al.  An algorithm for the reduction of metal clip artifacts in CT reconstructions. , 1981, Medical physics.

[7]  W. Kalender,et al.  A pragmatic approach to metal artifact reduction in CT: merging of metal artifact reduced images , 2004, European Radiology.

[8]  Thorsten M. Buzug,et al.  Evaluation of surrogate data quality in sinogram-based CT metal-artifact reduction , 2008, Optical Engineering + Applications.

[9]  Hollis G Potter,et al.  Comparison of CT, MRI, and Radiographs in Assessing Pelvic Osteolysis: A Cadaveric Study , 2005, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  C. Sofka Current applications of advanced cross-sectional imaging techniques in evaluating the painful arthroplasty , 2007, Skeletal Radiology.

[11]  Yong-Min Huh,et al.  Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. , 2007, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  Kevin O Khadivi Computed Tomography: Fundamentals, System Technology, Image Quality, Applications, 2nd edition. , 2006, Medical physics.

[13]  Jacob Geleijns,et al.  Development and validation of segmentation and interpolation techniques in sinograms for metal artifact suppression in CT. , 2010, Medical physics.

[14]  Lothar Spies,et al.  Metal artifact reduction in CT using tissue-class modeling and adaptive prefiltering. , 2006, Medical physics.

[15]  T. Bauer,et al.  The pathology of total joint arthroplasty , 1999, Skeletal Radiology.

[16]  S David Stulberg,et al.  Use of Helical Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Acetabular Osteolysis After Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  An iterative maximum-likelihood polychromatic algorithm for CT , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Charl P. Botha,et al.  Hybrid Scheduling in the DeVIDE Dataflow Visualisation Environment , 2008, SimVis.

[19]  Karl F Orishimo,et al.  Radiographic definition of pelvic osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  Robert G. Paden,et al.  Metal artifact reduction image reconstruction algorithm for CT of implanted metal orthopedic devices: a work in progress , 2009, Skeletal Radiology.

[21]  Jose Tamez-Pena,et al.  Volumetric computerized tomography as a measurement of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis and its correlation with wear , 2001, Arthritis research.

[22]  David Faul,et al.  Suppression of Metal Artifacts in CT Using a Reconstruction Procedure That Combines MAP and Projection Completion , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  M W Vannier,et al.  Fast iterative algorithm for metal artifact reduction in X-ray CT. , 2000, Academic radiology.

[24]  Willi A. Kalender,et al.  Computed tomography : fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications , 2000 .

[25]  W. Kalender,et al.  Reduction of CT artifacts caused by metallic implants. , 1987 .

[26]  C. Engh,et al.  Computed tomography in the assessment of periacetabular osteolysis. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  N. Ellison,et al.  The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy. 17th ed. , 1999 .

[28]  Rainer Raupach,et al.  A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[29]  Marco Nolden,et al.  Interactive segmentation framework of the Medical Imaging Interaction Toolkit , 2009, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[30]  C. Engh,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis: A cadaveric study , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[31]  K Engelke,et al.  CT of metal implants: reduction of artifacts using an extended CT scale technique. , 2000, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[32]  Kenneth A Buckwalter,et al.  Multichannel CT: evaluating the spine in postoperative patients with orthopedic hardware. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[33]  Lewis R. Lipsey,et al.  The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy , 1988, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[34]  Jiang Hsieh,et al.  Computed Tomography: Principles, Design, Artifacts, and Recent Advances, Fourth Edition , 2022 .

[35]  S. Agarwal,et al.  Osteolysis—basic science, incidence and diagnosis , 2004 .

[36]  T. Bauer,et al.  The pathology of total joint arthroplasty , 1999, Skeletal Radiology.