Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metal-induced artifacts in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of a biodegradable magnesium alloy versus titanium and stainless steel controls

  • Technical Report
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate metal artifacts induced by biodegradable magnesium—a new class of degradable biomaterial that is beginning to enter the orthopedic routine—on CT and MRI compared to standard titanium and steel controls.

Methods

Different pins made of titanium, stainless steel, and biodegradable magnesium alloys were scanned using a second-generation dual-energy multidetector CT and a 1.5-T MR scanner. In CT, quantitative assessment of artifacts was performed by two independent readers by measuring the noise in standardized regions of interest close to the pins. In MRI, the artifact diameter was measured. Interobserver agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Artifacts were compared using Mann Whitney U tests.

Results

In comparison to stainless steel, biodegradable magnesium alloys induced significantly fewer artifacts in both 1.5-T MRI (p = 0.019–0.021) and CT (p = 0.003–0.006). Compared to titanium, magnesium induced significantly less artifact-related noise in CT (p = 0.003–0.008). Although artifacts were less on MRI for biodegradable magnesium compared to titanium, this result was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Biodegradable magnesium alloys induce substantially fewer artifacts in CT compared to standard titanium and stainless steel, and fewer artifacts in MRI for the comparison with stainless steel.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

Computed tomography

FFE:

Fast-field echo

HU:

Hounsfield units

kV:

Kilovolts

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

mAs:

Milliampere-seconds

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

ROI:

Region of interest

SE:

Spin-echo

SEMAC:

Slice encoding for metal artifact correction

VAT:

View angle tilting

References

  1. Barrett JF, Keat N. Artifacts in CT: recognition and avoidance. Radiographics Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2004;24(6):1679–91.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ernstberger T, Heidrich G, Buchhorn G. Postimplantation MRI with cylindric and cubic intervertebral test implants: evaluation of implant shape, material, and volume in MRI artifacting–an in vitro study. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc. 2007;7(3):353–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Beister M, Kalender WA. A novel forward projection-based metal artifact reduction method for flat-detector computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54(21):6575–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc. 2007;27(3):791–803.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liu PT, Pavlicek WP, Peter MB, Spangehl MJ, Roberts CC, Paden RG. Metal artifact reduction image reconstruction algorithm for CT of implanted metal orthopedic devices: a work in progress. Skelet Radiol. 2009;38(8):797–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Harris CA, White LM. Metal artifact reduction in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging. Orthop Clin N Am. 2006;37(3):349–59. vi.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Prell D, Kyriakou Y, Kachelrie M, Kalender WA. Reducing metal artifacts in computed tomography caused by hip endoprostheses using a physics-based approach. Investig Radiol. 2010;45(11):747–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ulbrich EJ, Sutter R, Aguiar RF, Nittka M, Pfirrmann CW. STIR sequence with increased receiver bandwidth of the inversion pulse for reduction of metallic artifacts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(6):W735–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Koch KM, Brau AC, Chen W, Gold GE, Hargreaves BA, Koff M, et al. Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC-SEMAC hybrid. Magn Reson Med Off J Soc Magn Reson Med/Soc Magn Reson Med. 2011;65(1):71–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Witte F. The history of biodegradable magnesium implants: a review. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(5):1680–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Staiger MP, Pietak AM, Huadmai J, Dias G. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials. 2006;27(9):1728–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Windhagen H, Radtke K, Weizbauer A, Diekmann J, Noll Y, Kreimeyer U, et al. Biodegradable magnesium-based screw clinically equivalent to titanium screw in hallux valgus surgery: short term results of the first prospective, randomized, controlled clinical pilot study. Biomed Eng Online. 2013;12:62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Waizy H, Diekmann J, Weizbauer A, Reifenrath J, Bartsch I, Neubert V, et al. In vivo study of a biodegradable orthopedic screw (MgYREZr-alloy) in a rabbit model for up to 12 months. J Biomater Appl. 2013.

  14. Castellani C, Lindtner RA, Hausbrandt P, Tschegg E, Stanzl-Tschegg SE, Zanoni G, et al. Bone-implant interface strength and osseointegration: biodegradable magnesium alloy versus standard titanium control. Acta Biomater. 2011;7(1):432–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. ASTM F2119-07. Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implants: ASTM; 2007.

  16. Shinohara Y, Sakamoto M, Iwata N, Kishimoto J, Kuya K, Fujii S, et al. Usefulness of monochromatic imaging with metal artifact reduction software for computed tomography angiography after intracranial aneurysm coil embolization. Acta Radiol. 2013.

  17. Guggenberger R, Winklhofer S, Osterhoff G, Wanner GA, Fortunati M, Andreisek G, et al. Metallic artefact reduction with monoenergetic dual-energy CT: systematic ex vivo evaluation of posterior spinal fusion implants from various vendors and different spine levels. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(11):2357–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kundel HL, Polansky M. Measurement of observer agreement. Radiology. 2003;228(2):303–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tello R, Crewson PE. Hypothesis testing II: means. Radiology. 2003;227(1):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. White LM, Buckwalter KA. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2002;6(1):5–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moon SG, Hong SH, Choi JY, Jun WS, Kang HG, Kim HS, et al. Metal artifact reduction by the alteration of technical factors in multidetector computed tomography: a 3-dimensional quantitative assessment. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008;32(4):630–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, Jung B, Heussen N, Flohr TG, et al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Investig Radiol. 2003;38(12):769–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Wanner GA, Krauss A, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H. Reduction of metal artifacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology. 2013;268(1):237–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ernstberger T, Buchhorn G, Heidrich G. Artifacts in spine magnetic resonance imaging due to different intervertebral test spacers: an in vitro evaluation of magnesium versus titanium and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers as biomaterials. Neuroradiology. 2009;51(8):525–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stradiotti P, Curti A, Castellazzi G, Zerbi A. Metal-related artifacts in instrumented spine. Techniques for reducing artifacts in CT and MRI: state of the art. Eur Spine J Off Publ Eur Spine Soc Eur Spinal Deformity Soc Eur Sect Cervical Spine Res Soc. 2009;18 Suppl 1:102–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Witte F, Fischer J, Nellesen J, Crostack HA, Kaese V, Pisch A, et al. In vitro and in vivo corrosion measurements of magnesium alloys. Biomaterials. 2006;27(7):1013–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang J, He Y, Maitz MF, Collins B, Xiong K, Guo L, et al. A surface-eroding poly(1,3-trimethylene carbonate) coating for fully biodegradable magnesium-based stent applications: toward better biofunction, biodegradation and biocompatibility. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(10):8678–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ostrowski N, Lee B, Enick N, Carlson B, Kunjukunju S, Roy A, et al. Corrosion protection and improved cytocompatibility of biodegradable polymeric layer-by-layer coatings on AZ31 magnesium alloys. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(10):8704–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zomorodian A, Garcia MP, Moura EST, Fernandes JC, Fernandes MH, Montemor MF. Corrosion resistance of a composite polymeric coating applied on biodegradable AZ31 magnesium alloy. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(10):8660–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Lukas Filli, Thomas Frauenfelder, Roman Guggenberger, Nadja Farshad-Amacker & Gustav Andreisek

  2. Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University and ETH Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Roger Luechinger

  3. Synthes GmbH, 4528, Zuchwil, Switzerland

    Stefan Beck

  4. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Ramistrasse 100, CH - 8091, Zurich, Switzerland

    Lukas Filli

Authors
  1. Lukas Filli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Luechinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Frauenfelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roman Guggenberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nadja Farshad-Amacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gustav Andreisek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Filli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Filli, L., Luechinger, R., Frauenfelder, T. et al. Metal-induced artifacts in computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of a biodegradable magnesium alloy versus titanium and stainless steel controls. Skeletal Radiol 44, 849–856 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-2057-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-014-2057-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation