Metal artifact reduction for small metal implants on CT: Which image reconstruction algorithm performs better?

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of different image reconstruction algorithms in the presence of small metal objects of different sizes and at different dose levels. METHOD: A fresh bone of bovine femur was drilled with seven drill bits of increasing diameter. CT images with eight different dose levels were acquired and reconstructed with three algorithms: hybrid iterative reconstruction - HIR, Full model-based iterative reconstruction - full MBIR and a single energy metal artifact reduction - SEMAR. Trabecular distortion adjacent to metal was evaluated subjectively with a four-point scale. Edge profile artifacts were evaluated quantitatively by measuring drill bit diameter overestimation and the width of the low-density halo surrounding the drill bit. RESULTS: Trabecular distortion was higher with full MBIR compared to HIR and SEMAR (P < 0.0001) and increased with drill bits larger than 1.2 mm and with doses lower than 18.1 mGy.cm. Low-density halos size and drill bit diameter overestimation decreased with full MBIR compared to the other two reconstruction algorithms and with SEMAR compared to HIR (P < 0.0001). There was a mean drill bit overestimation of 0.56 ± 0.25 mm for full MBIR versus 0.68 ± 0.09 mm for SEMAR and mean low-density halo diameters of 0.03 mm ± 0.08 for full MBIR versus 0.42 mm ± 0.09 for SEMAR. CONCLUSION: Algorithm performance is influenced by dose levels and metal object size and no individual algorithm provides the best overall performance. Full MBIR is better in reducing edge artifacts and SEMAR is the best option for larger metal implants and low dose protocols.

Added Value of Bone Subtraction in Dual-energy Digital Radiography in the Detection of Pneumothorax: Impact of Reader Expertise and Medical Specialty.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the value of dual-energy thoracic radiography in the diagnosis of pneumothorax considering the reader's experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with a suspected pneumothorax, imaged with dual-energy chest radiographs, were divided into two groups: those with pneumothorax as the final diagnosis (n = 19) and those without (n = 21). The images were analyzed by 36 readers (5 interns, 16 residents, 15 senior physicians) for the presence or absence of pneumothorax during three readout sessions at 2-week intervals: standard images alone (session 1), dual-energy images with bone subtraction alone (session 2), and a combination of the two (session 3). RESULTS: The number of correct responses increased 13.3% between sessions 1 and 2 (P < .001) and 9.4% between sessions 1 and 3 (P < .001). The mean sensitivity for pneumothorax detection was higher in sessions 2 (82%) and 3 (79%) compared to session 1 (70%). There was no statistically significant difference in specificity between the sessions. The number of correct responses for small volume pneumothoraces was higher in sessions 2 (10.6 ± 1.8) and 3 (10.1 ± 2.0) than in session 1 (8.9 ± 2.3), with a statistically significant difference between sessions 1 and 2 (P = .002) and between sessions 1 and 3 (P = .048). CONCLUSION: Bone subtracted dual-energy thoracic radiographs improve the detection sensitivity of pneumothorax, including in cases of small pneumothoraces, regardless of the reader's level or expertise.