» Articles » PMID: 25805436

Usefulness of Metal Artifact Reduction with WARP Technique at 1.5 and 3T MRI in Imaging Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacings

Overview
Journal Skeletal Radiol
Specialties Orthopedics
Radiology
Date 2015 Mar 26
PMID 25805436
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the usefulness of the metal artifact reduction technique "WARP" in the assessment of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings at 1.5 and 3T in the context of image quality and imaging speed.

Materials And Methods: Nineteen patients (25 hip resurfacings) were randomized for 1.5 and 3T MRI, both including T1 and T2 turbo spin-echo as well as turbo inversion recovery magnitude sequences with and without view angle tilting and high bandwidth. Additional 3T sequences were acquired with a reduced number of averages and using the parallel acquisition technique for accelerating imaging speed. Artifact size (diameter, area), image quality (5-point scale) and delineation of anatomical structures were compared among the techniques, sequences and field strengths using the Wilcoxon sign-rank and paired t-test with Bonferroni correction.

Results: At both field strengths, WARP showed significant superiority over standard sequences regarding image quality, artifact size and delineation of anatomical structures. At 3T, artifacts were larger compared to 1.5T without affecting diagnostic quality, and scanning time could be reduced by up to 64 % without quality degradation.

Conclusion: WARP proved useful in imaging metal-on-metal hip resurfacings at 1.5T as well as 3T with better image quality surrounding the implants. At 3T imaging could be considerably accelerated without losing diagnostic quality.

Citing Articles

7-T clinical MRI of the shoulder in patients with suspected lesions of the rotator cuff.

Lazik-Palm A, Kraff O, Rietsch S, Ladd M, Kamminga M, Beck S Eur Radiol Exp. 2020; 4(1):10.

PMID: 32030499 PMC: 7005228. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-019-0142-1.


Quantitative evaluation of artefact reduction from metallic dental materials in short tau inversion recovery imaging: efficacy of WARP at 3.0 tesla.

Tran L, Sakamoto J, Kuribayashi A, Watanabe H, Tomisato H, Kurabayashi T Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2019; 48(7):20190036.

PMID: 31188678 PMC: 6775784. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20190036.


Advanced metal artifact reduction MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants: compressed sensing acceleration enables the time-neutral use of SEMAC.

Fritz J, Fritz B, Thawait G, Raithel E, Gilson W, Nittka M Skeletal Radiol. 2016; 45(10):1345-56.

PMID: 27497594 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-016-2437-0.


An illustrative review to understand and manage metal-induced artifacts in musculoskeletal MRI: a primer and updates.

Dillenseger J, Moliere S, Choquet P, Goetz C, Ehlinger M, Bierry G Skeletal Radiol. 2016; 45(5):677-88.

PMID: 26837388 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-016-2338-2.

References
1.
Duggan P, Burke C, Saha S, Moonim M, George M, Desai A . Current literature and imaging techniques of aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL). Clin Radiol. 2013; 68(11):1089-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.04.017. View

2.
Langton D, Joyce T, Jameson S, Lord J, Van Orsouw M, Holland J . Adverse reaction to metal debris following hip resurfacing: the influence of component type, orientation and volumetric wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(2):164-71. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.25099. View

3.
Matsuura H, Inoue T, Ogasawara K, Sasaki M, Konno H, Kuzu Y . Quantitative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging susceptibility artifacts caused by neurosurgical biomaterials: comparison of 0.5, 1.5, and 3.0 Tesla magnetic fields. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2005; 45(8):395-8. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.45.395. View

4.
Bestic J, Berquist T . Current concepts in hip arthroplasty imaging: metal-on-metal prostheses, their complications, and imaging strategies. Semin Roentgenol. 2013; 48(2):178-86. DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2012.11.008. View

5.
Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher I . Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005; 22(3):433-7. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20391. View