Metal implants on CT: comparison of iterative reconstruction algorithms for reduction of metal artifacts with single energy and spectral CT scanning in a phantom model
Abdominal Radiology, ISSN: 2366-0058, Vol: 42, Issue: 3, Page: 742-748
2017
- 18Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations18
- Citation Indexes18
- 18
- CrossRef3
- Captures42
- Readers42
- 42
Article Description
Purpose: To assess single energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) and spectral energy metal artifact reduction (MARS) algorithms in reducing artifacts generated by different metal implants. Materials and method: Phantom was scanned with and without SEMAR (Aquilion One, Toshiba) and MARS (Discovery CT750 HD, GE), with various metal implants. Images were evaluated objectively by measuring standard deviation in regions of interests and subjectively by two independent reviewers grading on a scale of 0 (no artifact) to 4 (severe artifact). Reviewers also graded new artifacts introduced by metal artifact reduction algorithms. Results: SEMAR and MARS significantly decreased variability of the density measurement adjacent to the metal implant, with median SD (standard deviation of density measurement) of 52.1 HU without SEMAR, vs. 12.3 HU with SEMAR, p < 0.001. Median SD without MARS of 63.1 HU decreased to 25.9 HU with MARS, p < 0.001. Median SD with SEMAR is significantly lower than median SD with MARS (p = 0.0011). SEMAR improved subjective image quality with reduction in overall artifacts grading from 3.2 ± 0.7 to 1.4 ± 0.9, p < 0.001. Improvement of overall image quality by MARS has not reached statistical significance (3.2 ± 0.6 to 2.6 ± 0.8, p = 0.088). There was a significant introduction of artifacts introduced by metal artifact reduction algorithm for MARS with 2.4 ± 1.0, but minimal with SEMAR 0.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001. Conclusion: CT iterative reconstruction algorithms with single and spectral energy are both effective in reduction of metal artifacts. Single energy-based algorithm provides better overall image quality than spectral CT-based algorithm. Spectral metal artifact reduction algorithm introduces mild to moderate artifacts in the far field.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85007602673&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1023-1; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28044188; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-016-1023-1; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-1023-1; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00261-016-1023-1
Springer Nature
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know