Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T13:21:00.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Orthopedic Medical Devices and Cross-sectional Imaging

Protocols and Artifacts

from Section IV - Medical Devices: Other Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2017

By
David Melville
Edited by
Tim B. Hunter ,
Mihra S. Taljanovic  and
Jason R. Wild
Tim B. Hunter
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, College of Medicine
Mihra S. Taljanovic
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, College of Medicine
Jason R. Wild
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, College of Medicine
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Radiologic Guide to Orthopedic Devices , pp. 215 - 235
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, R E, Macovski, A. Energy-selective reconstructions in X-ray computerized tomography. Phys Med Biol 1976; 21(5): 733–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, H, Toms, A P, Cahir, J G, et al. Grading the severity of soft tissue changes associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements: reliability of an MR grading system. Skeletal Radiol 2011; 40(3): 303–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arena, L, Morehouse, H T, Safir, J. MR imaging artifacts that simulate disease: how to recognize and eliminate them. Radiographics 1995; 15(6): 1373–1394.Google Scholar
Bamberg, F, Dierks, A, Nikolaou, K, et al. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(7): 1424–1429.Google Scholar
Beltran, L S, Bencardino, J T, Steinbach, L S. Postoperative MRI of the shoulder. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2014; 40(6): 1280–1297.Google Scholar
Bestic, J M, Berquist, T H. Current concepts in hip arthroplasty imaging: metal-on-metal prostheses, their complications, and imaging strategies. Semin Roentgenol 2013; 48(2): 178–186.Google Scholar
Biswas, D, Bible, J E, Bohan, M, et al. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91(8): 1882–1889.Google Scholar
Boll, D T, Patil, N A, Paulson, E K, et al. Renal stone assessment with dual-energy multidetector CT and advanced postprocessing techniques: improved characterization of renal stone composition – pilot study. Radiology 2009; 250(3): 813–820.Google Scholar
Breger, R K, Czervionke, L F, Kass, E G, et al. Truncation artifact in MR images of the intervertebral disk. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1988; 9(5): 825–828.Google Scholar
Bronskill, M J, McVeigh, E R, Kucharczyk, W, Henkelman, R M. Syrinx-like artifacts on MR images of the spinal cord. Radiology 1988; 166(2): 485–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckwalter, K A. Optimizing imaging techniques in the postoperative patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2007; 11(3): 261–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckwalter, K A, Parr, J A, Choplin, R H, Capello, W N. Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2006; 10(1): 86–97.Google Scholar
Buckwalter, K A, Lin, C, Ford, J M. Managing postoperative artifacts on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2011; 15(4): 309–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calhoun, PS, Kuszyk, BS, Heath, DG, Carley, JC, Fishman, EK. Three-dimensional volume rendering of spiral CT data: theory and method. Radiographics 1999; 19(3): 745–764.Google Scholar
Carl, M, Koch, K, Du, J. MR imaging near metal with undersampled 3D radial UTE-MAVRIC sequences. Magn Reson Med 2013; 69(1): 27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z, Pandit, H, Taylor, A, et al. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacings – a radiological perspective. Eur Radiol 2011; 21(3): 485–491.Google Scholar
Chiang, P P, Burke, D W, Freiberg, A A, Rubash, H E. Osteolysis of the pelvis: evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 417: 164–174.Google Scholar
Chiro, G D, Brooks, R A, Kessler, R M, et al. Tissue signatures with dual-energy computed tomography. Radiology 1979; 131(2): 521–523.Google Scholar
Choi, S-J, Koch, K M, Hargreaves, B A, Stevens, K J, Gold, G E. Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 140–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, H D, Math, K R, Scuderi, G R. Polyethylene post failure in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19(5): 652–657.Google Scholar
Claus, A M, Totterman, S M, Sychterz, C J, et al. Computed tomography to assess pelvic lysis after total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 422: 167–174.Google Scholar
Clayton, R A, Beggs, I, Salter, D M, et al. Inflammatory pseudotumor associated with femoral nerve palsy following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90(9): 1988–1993.Google Scholar
Coupal, T M, Mallinson, P I, McLaughlin, P, et al. Peering through the glare: using dual-energy CT to overcome the problem of metal artefacts in bone radiology. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43(5): 567–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czervionke, L F, Czervionke, J M, Daniels, D L, Haughton, V M. Characteristic features of MR truncation artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151(6): 1219–1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Haan, R, Campbell, P A, Su, E P, De Smet, K A. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90(9): 1158–1163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
den Harder, J C, van Yperen, G H, Blume, U A, Bos, C. Off-resonance suppression for multispectral MR imaging near metallic implants. Magn Reson Med 2015; 73(1): 233–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farber, G L, Place, H M, Mazur, R A, Jones, D E, Damiano, T R. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in lumbar fusions by plain radiographs and computed tomography. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20(13): 1494–1499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fayad, L M, Patra, A, Fishman, E K. Value of 3D CT in defining skeletal complications of orthopedic hardware in the postoperative patient. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193(4): 1155–1163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flohr, TG, Stierstorfer, K, Ulzheimer, S, et al. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot. Med Phys 2005; 32(8): 2536–2547.Google Scholar
Glyn-Jones, S, Pandit, H, Kwon, Y M, et al. Risk factors for inflammatory pseudotumour formation following hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(12): 1566–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grammatopoulos, G, Pandit, H, Oxford Hip and Knee Group, Murray, D W, Gill, H S. The relationship between head-neck ratio and pseudotumour formation in metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92(11): 1527–1534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grigoryan, M, Lynch, J A, Fierlinger, AL, et al. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of closed fracture healing using computed tomography and conventional radiography. Acad Radiol 2003; 10(11): 1267–1273.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, B A, Worters, P W, Pauly, K B, et al. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197(3): 547–555.Google Scholar
Hayter, C L, Gold, S L, Koff, M F, et al. MRI findings in painful metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199(4): 884–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyde, J S, Jesmanowicz, A, Grist, T M, Froncisz, W, Kneeland, J B. Quadrature detection surface coil. Magn Reson Med 1987; 4(2): 179–184.Google Scholar
Johnson, T R, Krauss, B, Sedlmair, M, et al. Material differentiation by dual energy CT: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2007; 17(6): 1510–1517.Google Scholar
Koch, K M, Lorbiecki, J E, Hinks, R S, King, K F. A multispectral three-dimensional acquisition technique for imaging near metal implants. Magn Reson Med 2009; 61(2): 381–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krestan, CR, Noske, H, Vasilevska, V, et al. MDCT versus digital radiography in the evaluation of bone healing in orthopedic patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186(6): 1754–1760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, Y M, Ostlere, S J, McLardy-Smith, P, et al. “Asymptomatic” pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(4): 511–518.Google Scholar
Laine, T, Makitalo, K, Schelenza, D, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw insertion: a prospective CT study in 30 low back patients. Eur Spine J 1997; 6(6): 402–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, D W, Teitelbaum, G P, Norman, D. Cerebrospinal fluid flow artifact. A possible pitfall on fast-spin-echo MR imaging of the spine simulating intradural pathology. Clin Imaging 1996; 20(2): 140–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Y H, Park, K K, Song, H T, Kim, S, Suh, J S. Metal artefact reduction in gemstone spectral imaging dual-energy CT with and without metal artefact reduction software. Eur Radiol 2012; 22(6): 1331–1340.Google Scholar
Levy, L M, Di Chiro, G, Brooks, R A, et al. Spinal cord artifacts from truncation errors during MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 166(2): 479–483.Google Scholar
Li, H, Yu, L, Liu, X, McCollough, C H. Metal artifact suppression from reformatted projections in multi-slice helical CT using dual-front active contours. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2009. 2009: 993–996.Google Scholar
Liebl, H, Heilmeier, U, Lee, S, et al. In vitro assessment of knee MRI in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015; 41(5): 1291–1299.Google Scholar
Lonstein, J E, Denis, F, Perra, J H, et al. Complications associated with pedicle screws. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81(11): 1519–1528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lu, W, Pauly, K B, Gold, G E, Pauly, J M, Hargreaves, B A. SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62(1): 66–76.Google Scholar
Mahendra, G, Pandit, H, Kliskey, K, et al. Necrotic and inflammatory changes in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 2009; 80(6): 653–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meinel, F G, Bischoff, B, Zhang, Q, et al. Metal artifact reduction by dual-energy computed tomography using energetic extrapolation: a systematically optimized protocol. Invest Radiol 2012; 47(7): 406–414.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D G. MRI principles. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1999.Google Scholar
Morelli, J N, Runge, V M, Ai, F, et al. An image-based approach to understanding the physics of MR artifacts. Radiographics 2011; 31(3): 849–866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naudie, D D, Rorabeck, C H. Sources of osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: wear of the bearing surface. Instr Course Lect 2004; 53: 251–259.Google Scholar
Nickoloff, E L, Alderson, P O. Radiation exposures to patients from CT: reality, public perception, and policy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177(2): 285–287.Google Scholar
Nicolaou, S, Yong-Hing, C J, Galea-Soler, S, et al. Dual-energy CT as a potential new diagnostic tool in the management of gout in the acute setting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194(4): 1072–1078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohashi, K, El-Khoury, G Y. Musculoskeletal CT: recent advances and current clinical applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2009; 47(3): 387–409.Google Scholar
Ohashi, K, El-Khoury, G Y, Bennett, D L, Restrepo, J M, Berbaum, K S. Orthopedic hardware complications diagnosed with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005; 237(2): 570–577.Google Scholar
Ostlere, S. How to image metal-on-metal prostheses and their complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197(3): 558–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandit, H, Glyn-Jones, S, McLardy-Smith, P, et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90(7): 847–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peh, W C, Chan, J H. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001; 30(4): 179–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pessis, E, Campagna, R, Sverzut, J M, et al. Virtual monochromatic spectral imaging with fast kilovoltage switching: reduction of metal artifacts at CT. Radiographics 2013; 33(2): 573–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potter, H G, Nestor, B J, Sofka, C M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004; 86A(9): 1947–1954.Google Scholar
Quint, D J, Patel, S C, Sanders, W O, Hearshon, D O, Boulos, R S. Importance of absence of CSF pulsation artifacts in the MR detection of significant myelographic block at 1.5 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1989; 10(5): 1089–1095.Google Scholar
Raphael, B, Haims, A H, Wu, J S, et al. MRI comparison of periprosthetic structures around zirconium knee prostheses and cobalt chrome prostheses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186(6): 1771–1777.Google Scholar
Rubin, J B, Wright, A, Enzmann, D R. Lumbar spine: motion compensation for cerebrospinal fluid on MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 167(1): 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, D R, Chin, M S, Peh, W C. Artifacts in musculoskeletal MR imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2014; 18(1): 12–22.Google Scholar
Sochart, D H, Porter, M L. The long-term results of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in young patients who have congenital dislocation, degenerative osteoarthrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79(11): 1599–1617.Google Scholar
Sofka, C M, Potter, H G, Figgie, M, Laskin, R. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (406): 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, R, Ulbrich, E J, Jellus, V, Nittka, M, Pfirrmann, C W. Reduction of metal artifacts in patients with total hip arthroplasty with slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 265(1): 204–214.Google Scholar
Taber, K H, Herrick, R C, Weathers, S W, et al. Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine. Radiographics 1998; 18(6): 1499–1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takahashi, N, Hartman, R P, Vrtiska, T J, et al. Dual-energy CT iodine-subtraction virtual unenhanced technique to detect urinary stones in an iodine-filled collecting system: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190(5): 1169–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbot, B S, Weinberg, E P. MR imaging with metal-suppression sequences for evaluation of total joint arthroplasty. Radiographics 2016; 36: 209–225.Google Scholar
Taljanovic, M S, Jones, M D, Hunter, T B, et al. Joint arthroplasties and prostheses. Radiographics 2003; 23(5): 1295–1314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, D A, Rapoport, M I, Erwin, W D, McGould, M, Silvers, R I. Truncation artifact: a potential pitfall in MR imaging of the menisci of the knee. Radiology 1991; 179(3): 629–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watzke, O, Kalender, W A. A pragmatic approach to metal artifact reduction in CT: merging of metal artifact reduced images. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(5): 849–856.Google Scholar
White, L M, Buckwalter, K A. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2002; 6(1): 5–17.Google Scholar
Wiles, P. The surgery of the osteoarthritic hip. Br J Surg 1958; 45(193): 488–497.Google Scholar
Wood, M L, Henkelman, R M. MR image artifacts from periodic motion. Med Phys 1985; 12(2): 143–151.Google Scholar
Yu, L, Leng, S, McCollough, C H. Dual-energy CT-based monochromatic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199(5 Suppl): S9–S15.Google Scholar
Zhuo, J, Gullapalli, R P. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: MR artifacts, safety, and quality control. Radiographics 2006; 26(1): 275–297.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×