We demonstrate the negative effects of increasing echo train lengths on total implant-related artifact in a setting of controlled bandwidth, echo spacing and effective echo time. For the practical purpose of metal artifact reduction sequence MR imaging with use of turbo spin echo pulse sequences, high receiver bandwidth can be recommended as the first line means, whereas long echo train length may not be recommended and used cautiously due to the potential of substantial degradation of image quality.
To quantitatively and qualitatively assess the effects of echo train length as well as bandwidth and echo spacing on MR metal artifact using a Cobalt-Chromium arthroplasty implant system.
A Cobalt-Chromium based total ankle arthroplasty system was implanted into a human cadaver ankle. Using a clinical 1.5 Tesla MR imaging system, sagittally oriented, conventional 2-dimensional turbo spin echo (TSE) pulse sequences were acquired with ETL ranging from 3 to 23 as well as BW from 100 to 750 Hz/pixel and corresponding echo spacing from 6.38 to 14.2 ms. For each combination of ETL and BW/echo spacing, sequence parameters such as effective echo time and spatial resolution were controlled. A sagittally oriented, compressed-sensing TSE pulse sequence (CS-SEMAC) with 19 phase-encoding steps, BW of 600 Hertz/pixel and otherwise identical parameters was acquired with ETL ranging from 3 to 23 to isolate additional effects of increasing ETL and as the standard of reference (ETL 3) [8,9,10]. The primary endpoint variable was the total implant-related artifact area, normalized to the calcaneal area of the index slice. Secondary endpoint variables included normalized implant-related signal void areas on sagittal and coronal image reformats. Two raters evaluated the overall image quality and preference across varying BW and ETL. Two-factor-ANOVA, Friedman, and Kruskal-Wallis tests, Pearson correlation and inter-rater agreement were used. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
1. Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG. MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants. Radiographics. 2014;34(4):E106-32.
2. Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(3):547-55.
3. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR–SSR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Hip and Pelvis for Musculoskeletal Disorders 2016 [updated 2016; cited 2016 11/2/2016]. Available from http://www.acr.org/~/media/fc429e5a40eb4513a6934d8037445473.pdf
4. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR–SSR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Knee 2015 [updated 2015; cited 2016 11/2/2016]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/MRI_Knee.pdf.
5. Talbot BS, Weinberg EP. MR Imaging with Metal-suppression Sequences for Evaluation of Total Joint Arthroplasty. Radiographics. 2016;36(1):209-25.
6. Lee MJ, Kim S, Lee SA, Song HT, Huh YM, Kim DH, et al. Overcoming artifacts from metallic orthopedic implants at high-field-strength MR imaging and multi-detector CT. Radiographics. 2007;27(3):791-803.
7. Eustace S, Goldberg R, Williamson D, Melhem ER, Oladipo O, Yucel EK, et al. MR imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopaedic hardware: techniques to minimize susceptibility artefact. Clin Radiol. 1997;52(8):589-94.
8. 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.
9. Sutter R, Ulbrich EJ, Jellus V, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW. Reduction of metal artifacts in patients with total hip arthroplasty with slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;265(1):204-14.
10. Fritz J, Ahlawat S, Demehri S, Thawait GK, Raithel E, Gilson WD, et al. Compressed Sensing SEMAC: 8-fold Accelerated High Resolution Metal Artifact Reduction MRI of Cobalt-Chromium Knee Arthroplasty Implants. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(10):666-76.