Spinal cord motion: influence of respiration and cardiac cycle.

PURPOSE: To assess physiological spinal cord motion during the cardiac cycle compared with the influence of respiration based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anterior-posterior spinal cord motion within the spinal canal was assessed in 16 healthy volunteers (median age, 25 years) by cardiac-triggered and cardiac-gated gradient echo pulse sequence MRI. Image acquisition was performed during breath-holding, normal breathing, and forced breathing. Normal spinal cord motion values were computed using descriptive statistics. Breathing-dependent differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and compared with the cardiac-based cord motion. RESULTS: A normal value table was set up for the spinal cord motion of each vertebral cervico-thoracic-lumbar segment. Significant differences in cord motion were found between cardiac-based motion while breath-holding and the two breathing modalities (P < 0.01 each). Spinal cord motion was found to be highest during forced breathing, with a maximum in the lower cervical spinal segments (C5; mean, 2.1 mm ±â€Š1.17). Image acquisition during breath-holding revealed the lowest motion. CONCLUSION: MRI permits the demonstration and evaluation of cardiac and respiration-dependent spinal cord motion within the spinal canal from the cervical to lumbar segments. Breathing conditions have a considerably greater impact than cardiac activity on spinal cord motion. KEY POINTS: • Cardiac-triggered and ECG-gated MRI allows for demonstration of the smallest spinal cord motions.• Respiratory influences seem to have the highest impact on spine motion.• In contrast, the influence of the cardiac cycle seems to be small.• The smallest spinal cord motions were measured during breath-hold.

CT metal artefact reduction for internal fixation of the proximal humerus: value of mono-energetic extrapolation from dual-energy and iterative reconstructions.

AIM: To assess the value of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and an iterative frequency split-normalized metal artefact reduction (IFS-MAR) algorithm compared to filtered back projections (FBP) from single-energy CT (SECT) for artefact reduction in internally fixated humeral fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six internally fixated cadaveric humeri were examined using SECT and DECT. Data were reconstructed using FBP, IFS-MAR, and mono-energetic DECT extrapolations. Image analysis included radiodensity values and qualitative evaluation of artefacts, image quality, and level of confidence for localizing screw tips. RESULTS: Radiodensity values of streak artefacts were significantly different (p < 0.05) between FBP (-104 ± 222) and IFS-MAR (73 ± 122), and between FBP and DECT (32 ± 151), without differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). Compared to FBP, qualitative artefacts were significantly reduced using IFS-MAR (p < 0.001) and DECT (p < 0.05), without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.219). Image quality significantly (p = 0.016) improved for IFS-MAR and DECT compared to FBP, without significant differences between IFS-MAR and DECT (p < 0.553). The level of confidence for screw tip localization was assessed as best for DECT in all cases. CONCLUSION: Both IFS-MAR in SECT and mono-energetic DECT produce improved image quality and a reduction of metal artefacts. Screw tip positions can be most confidently assessed using DECT.

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.