Optimizing Imaging Techniques in the Postoperative Patient

ABSTRACT

Postoperative patients may develop complications requiring imaging. Although any imaging technique can be used to investigate these patients, the presence of metal hardware in the region of interest may distort the image and interfere with diagnosis. It is important to understand why this distortion occurs and how to compensate for it. Because some of the most common cross-sectional imaging methods used to image this patient population are computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), this article focuses on these imaging methods. Metal-related artifacts on CT depend on the hardware alloy, the geometry of the hardware, and the location of the hardware relative to the region of interest. The artifacts may be reduced or eliminated by altering the scan technique, changing the patient position, selecting a smoother CT reconstruction algorithm, and by creating thicker slice multiplanar reformations. Like CT, metal artifacts at MR imaging depend on the type of hardware alloy. Hardware-related artifacts at MR imaging can be reduced by using appropriate pulse sequences, such as fast or turbo spin echo and inversion recovery. Additionally, important pulse sequence modifications that are addressed here include manipulation of the receiver bandwidth and orientation of the frequency encode axis.

KEYWORDS

Computed tomography (CT) - magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) - orthopedic prosthesis - artifact - neoplasm

REFERENCES

• 1 Sureshbabu W, Mawlawi O. PET/CT imaging artifacts.  J Nucl Med Technol. 2005;  33(3) 156-161
• 2 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
• 3 White L M, Buckwalter K A. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient.  Semin Musculoskel Radiol. 2002;  6(1) 5-17
• 4 Robertson D D, Weiss P J, Fishman E K, Magid D, Walker P S. Evaluation of CT techniques for reducing artifacts in the presence of metallic orthopedic implants.  J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1988;  12(2) 236-241
• 5 Flohr T G, Stierstorfer K, Ulzheimer S, Bruder H, Primak A N, McCollough C H. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 64-slice CT scanner with z-flying focal spot.  Med Phys. 2005;  32(8) 2536-2547
• 6 Clarke I C, Manaka M, Green D D et al.. Current status of zirconia used in total hip implants.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;  85-A(Suppl 4) 73-84
• 7 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
• 8 Defrise M, Noo F, Kudo H. Rebinning-based algorithms for helical cone-beam CT.  Phys Med Biol. 2001;  46(11) 2911-2937
• 9 Kachelriess M, Fuchs T, Schaller S, Kalender W A. Advanced single-slice rebinning for tilted spiral cone-beam CT.  Med Phys. 2001;  28(6) 1033-1041
• 10 Harris C A, White L M. Metal artifact reduction in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging.  Orthop Clin North Am. 2006;  37(3) 349-359
• 11 Raphael B, Haims A H, Wu J S, Katz L D, White L M, Lynch K. MRI comparison of periprosthetic structures around zirconium knee prostheses and cobalt chrome prostheses.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;  186(6) 1771-1777
• 12 Wang J C, Yu W D, Sandhu H S, Tam V, Delamarter R B. A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation.  Spine. 1998;  23(15) 1684-1688
• 13 Wintersperger B J, Runge V M, Biswas J et al.. Brain magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla using BLADE compared with standard rectilinear data sampling.  Invest Radiol. 2006;  41(7) 586-592
• 14 Ramos-Cabrer P, van Duynhoven J P, Van der Toorn A, Nicolay K. MRI of hip prostheses using single-point methods: in vitro studies towards the artifact-free imaging of individuals with metal implants.  Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;  22(8) 1097-1103