Technical aspects of CT imaging of the spine

This review article discusses technical aspects of computed tomography (CT) imaging of the spine. Patient positioning, and its influence on image quality and movement artefact, is discussed. Particular emphasis is placed on the choice of scan parameters and their relation to image quality and radiation burden to the patient. Strategies to reduce radiation burden and artefact from metal implants are outlined. Data acquisition, processing, image display and steps to reduce artefact are reviewed. CT imaging of the spine is put into context with other imaging modalities for specific clinical indications or problems. This review aims to review underlying principles for image acquisition and to provide a rough guide for clinical problems without being prescriptive. Individual practice will always vary and reflect differences in local experience, technical provisions and clinical requirements

Measuring femoral lesions despite CT metal artefacts: a cadaveric study

Objective Computed 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 methods We 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. Metalaffected CTs were processed using standard back-projection as well as projection interpolation (PI) MAR. Two experienced users segmented all lesions and compared segmentation accuracy. Results We 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.MediamaticsElectrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Scienc

Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate optimal monoenergetic dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) settings for artefact reduction of posterior spinal fusion implants of various vendors and spine levels. METHODS: Posterior spinal fusion implants of five vendors for cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine were examined ex vivo with single-energy (SE) CT (120 kVp) and DECT (140/100 kVp). Extrapolated monoenergetic DECT images at 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and individually adjusted monoenergy for optimised image quality (OPTkeV) were generated. Two independent radiologists assessed quantitative and qualitative image parameters for each device and spine level. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreements of quantitative and qualitative parameters were high (ICC = 0.81-1.00, κ = 0.54-0.77). HU values of spinal fusion implants were significantly different among vendors (P < 0.001), spine levels (P < 0.01) and among SECT, monoenergetic DECT of 64, 69, 88, 105 keV and OPTkeV (P < 0.01). Image quality was significantly (P < 0.001) different between datasets and improved with higher monoenergies of DECT compared with SECT (V = 0.58, P < 0.001). Artefacts decreased significantly (V = 0.51, P < 0.001) at higher monoenergies. OPTkeV values ranged from 123-141 keV. OPTkeV according to vendor and spine level are presented herein. CONCLUSIONS: Monoenergetic DECT provides significantly better image quality and less metallic artefacts from implants than SECT. Use of individual keV values for vendor and spine level is recommended. KEY POINTS: • Artefacts pose problems for CT following posterior spinal fusion implants. • CT images are interpreted better with monoenergetic extrapolation using dual-energy (DE) CT. • DECT extrapolation improves image quality and reduces metallic artefacts over SECT. • There were considerable differences in monoenergy values among vendors and spine levels. • Use of individualised monoenergy values is indicated for different metallic hardware devices