Comparison of quantitative measurements of four manufacturer's metal artifact reduction techniques for CT imaging with a self-made acrylic phantom.
Computed tomography
metal artifact reduction
quantitative analysis
Journal
Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine
ISSN: 1878-7401
Titre abrégé: Technol Health Care
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9314590
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
pubmed:
5
5
2020
medline:
7
4
2021
entrez:
5
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images. This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spinal implant, and dental filling) with a self-made acrylic phantom. A cylindrical phantom was made from acrylic with a groove in the middle, and then three types of metal implants were placed in the groove. The phantom was scanned by four CT scanners and four commercialized MAR techniques were used to analyze the images. The techniques used were single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR, Canon), smart metal artifact reduction software (Smart-MAR, GE), iterative metal artifact reduction (IMAR, Siemens), and metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (OMAR, Philips). Quantitative analysis methods included objective and subjective analysis. The expected value of SEMAR, Smart-MAR, IMAR, and OMAR were 36.6, 37.8, 5.0, and 2.3, respectively. SEMAR and Smart-MAR achieved optimal results. This study successfully evaluated the effects of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants in a phantom. All MAR techniques effectively reduced metal artifacts, but the effect was not significant with dental fillings due to high-density material.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques can improve metal artifacts of computed tomography (CT) images.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This work focused on conducting a quantitative analysis to compare the effectiveness of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants (hip implant, spinal implant, and dental filling) with a self-made acrylic phantom.
METHODS
METHODS
A cylindrical phantom was made from acrylic with a groove in the middle, and then three types of metal implants were placed in the groove. The phantom was scanned by four CT scanners and four commercialized MAR techniques were used to analyze the images. The techniques used were single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR, Canon), smart metal artifact reduction software (Smart-MAR, GE), iterative metal artifact reduction (IMAR, Siemens), and metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (OMAR, Philips). Quantitative analysis methods included objective and subjective analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The expected value of SEMAR, Smart-MAR, IMAR, and OMAR were 36.6, 37.8, 5.0, and 2.3, respectively. SEMAR and Smart-MAR achieved optimal results.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study successfully evaluated the effects of four commercial MAR techniques on three types of metal implants in a phantom. All MAR techniques effectively reduced metal artifacts, but the effect was not significant with dental fillings due to high-density material.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32364160
pii: THC209028
doi: 10.3233/THC-209028
pmc: PMC7369061
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
273-287Références
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1988 Mar-Apr;12(2):236-41
pubmed: 3351038
Acta Radiol Open. 2017 Feb 01;6(2):2058460117693463
pubmed: 28321330
J Clin Imaging Sci. 2018 Mar 12;8:11
pubmed: 29619282
Acta Radiol. 2018 Sep;59(9):1110-1118
pubmed: 29310445
Acta Radiol. 2017 Mar;58(3):279-285
pubmed: 27166346
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Mar;42(3):742-748
pubmed: 28044188
Acta Radiol Open. 2017 Nov 26;6(11):2058460117743279
pubmed: 29225924
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Jul;19(4):252-260
pubmed: 29749048
Med Phys. 2018 Oct;45(10):4329-4344
pubmed: 30076784
Interv Neuroradiol. 2018 Jun;24(3):303-308
pubmed: 29466904
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Feb 7;60(3):1047-67
pubmed: 25585685
Br J Radiol. 2016 Jul;89(1063):20150993
pubmed: 27123700
Jpn J Radiol. 2018 Apr;36(4):285-294
pubmed: 29429141
Clin Neuroradiol. 2019 Jun;29(2):277-284
pubmed: 29147735
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 01;10(6):e0127932
pubmed: 26030821
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2018 Jul/Aug;42(4):655-660
pubmed: 29613989
Br J Radiol. 2015 Aug;88(1052):20140473
pubmed: 26110201
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Apr 21;62(8):R49-R80
pubmed: 28323641