Advances in Metal Artifact Reduction Techniques for Periprosthetic Soft Tissue Imaging

Abstract

Artifact from metallic orthopedic prosthesis is caused by inhomogeneity in the B₀ magnetic field, particularly in the frequency encoding direction. This results in signal voids, signal pileup, and geometric distortion. Advances in reducing this artifact allow us to assess the complications of joint replacement and improve imaging of nearby tissues such as within the pelvis. Selection of titanium implants and lower field strength MR units provide optimal conditions for artifact reduction. Conventional sequences can be optimized by using inversion recovery sequences, large matrices, high receiver bandwidths, and thin slices. Optimizing these parameters comes with a penalty in terms of signal-to-noise ratio or increased acquisition times. Successful artifact reduction depends on the strength of the frequency encoding gradients. Newer dedicated artifact reduction sequences include view-angle-tilting and a selection of multispectral techniques including multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination (MAVRIC) and slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC). Many of these are being used in combination. The multispectral sequences acquire three-dimensional data at very narrow frequencies and use of phase encoding for spatial localization. Planar images can then be reconstructed with very little susceptibility artifact.

Keywords

susceptibility artifact - orthopedic prosthesis - artifact reduction

• References

• 1 Crues J, Bydder G. Frontiers in musculoskeletal imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25 (2) 232-233
• 2 Kanal E, Shellock FG, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology 1990; 176 (3) 593-606
• 3 Schenck JF. The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. Med Phys 1996; 23 (6) 815-850
• 4 Toms A, Aboelmagd S, Malcolm P. Magnetic resonance imaging of metal artifact reduction sequences in the assessment of metal-on-metal hip prostheses. Rep Med Imaging 2014; 7: 65-74
• 5 Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (3) 547-555
• 6 Suh JS, Jeong EK, Shin KH , et al. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171 (5) 1207-1213
• 7 Cho ZH, Kim DJ, Kim YK. Total inhomogeneity correction including chemical shifts and susceptibility by view angle tilting. Med Phys 1988; 15 (1) 7-11
• 8 Harris CA, White LM. Metal artifact reduction in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Orthop Clin North Am 2006; 37 (3) 349-359 , vi
• 9 Eustace S, Jara H, Goldberg R , et al. A comparison of conventional spin-echo and turbo spin-echo imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170 (2) 455-458
• 10 Raphael B, Haims AH, Wu JS, Katz LD, White LM, Lynch K. MRI comparison of periprosthetic structures around zirconium knee prostheses and cobalt chrome prostheses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186 (6) 1771-1777
• 11 Potter HG, Foo LF, Nestor BJ. What is the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasty?. HSS J 2005; 1 (1) 89-93
• 12 Lee M-J, Kim S, Lee S-A , et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics 2007; 27 (3) 791-803
• 13 Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati EA. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A (9) 1947-1954
• 14 Sofka CM, Potter HG, Figgie M, Laskin R. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (406) 129-135
• 15 Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62 (1) 66-76
• 16 Toms AP, Smith-Bateman C, Malcolm PN, Cahir J, Graves M. Optimization of metal artefact reduction (MAR) sequences for MRI of total hip prostheses. Clin Radiol 2010; 65 (6) 447-452
• 17 Butts K, Pauly JM, Gold GE. Reduction of blurring in view angle tilting MRI. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53 (2) 418-424
• 18 Koch KM, Brau AC, Chen W , et al. Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC-SEMAC hybrid. Magn Reson Med 2011; 65 (1) 71-82
• 19 Bydder M, Du J, Takahashi A , et al. Chemical shift artifact in center-out radial sampling: a potential pitfall in clinical diagnosis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine; 2007; Berkeley, CA:1811
• 20 Bos C, den Harder C, van Yperen GMR. Imaging near orthopedic implants with artefact reduction using view-angle tilting and off-resonance suppression. Paper presented at: International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine annual meeting; May 5–11, 2012; Melbourne, Australia
• 21 Koch KM, Lorbiecki JE, Hinks RS, King KF. A multispectral three-dimensional acquisition technique for imaging near metal implants. Magn Reson Med 2009; 61 (2) 381-390
• 22 Hayter CL, Koff MF, Shah P, Koch KM, Miller TT, Potter HG. MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (3) W405-W411
• 23 Chen CA, Chen W, Goodman SB , et al. New MR imaging methods for metallic implants in the knee: artifact correction and clinical impact. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33 (5) 1121-1127
• 24 Koch KM, Koff MF, Shah PH, Kanwischer A, Gui D, Potter HG. Flexible longitudinal magnetization contrast in spectrally overlapped 3D-MSI metal artifact reduction sequences: technical considerations and clinical impact. Magn Reson Med 2014;
• 25 Carl M, Koch K, Du J. MR imaging near metal with undersampled 3D radial UTE-MAVRIC sequences. Magn Reson Med 2013; 69 (1) 27-36
• 26 Den Harder JC, van Yperen GH, Blume UA, Bos C. Off-resonance suppression for multispectral MR imaging near metallic implants. Magn Reson Med 2014;