Search

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of 2D and 3D acetabular coverage assessments based on low-dose biplanar radiographs (BPR) in comparison with CT, and to demonstrate the influence of weight-bearing position (WBP) on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages., Methods: Fifty patients (21 females, 29 males) underwent standing BPR and supine CT of the pelvis. Using dedicated software, BPR-based calculations of anterior and posterior 2D coverages and anterior, posterior, and global 3D coverages were performed in standardized anterior pelvic plane (APP) and WBP. CT-based anterior and posterior 2D coverages and global 3D coverage was calculated in APP and compared with BPR-based data. Statistics included intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots., Results: Mean anterior 2D coverage was 21.2% (standard deviation, ± 7.4%) for BPR and 23.8% (± 8.4%) for CT (p = 0.226). Mean posterior 2D coverage was 54.2% (± 9.8%) for BPR and 61.7% (± 9.7%) for CT (p = 0.001). Mean global 3D coverage was 46.5% (± 3.0%) for BPR and 45.6% (± 3.6%) for CT (p = 0.215). The inter-method reliability between CT and BPR and inter-reader reliability for BPR-based measurements were very good for all measurement (all ICC > 0.8). Based on BPR, mean anterior and posterior 3D coverages were 20.5% and 26.0% in WBP and APP, while 25 patients increased anterior and 24 patients increased posterior 3D coverage from APP to WBP with a relative change of coverage of up to 11.9% and 10.0%, respectively., Conclusions: 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on BPR. The impact of standing position on acetabular coverage can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis., Key Points: • 2D and 3D acetabular coverages can be calculated with very good reliability based on biplanar radiographs in comparison with CT. • The impact of standing position on anterior and posterior acetabular coverages can be quantified with BPR on an individual basis.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify an optimal imaging protocol for metal artifact reduced magnetic resonance imaging by application of different imaging and postprocessing parameters in compressed sensing slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (CS-SEMAC) and to test it in patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA)., Materials and Methods: In an experimental setup, a phantom consisting of a standard THA embedded in gadolinium-containing agarose was scanned at 1.5 T. Pulse sequences included coronal short tau inversion recovery (STIR), T1-weighted (w), and T2-w CS-SEMAC sequences. All pulse sequences were acquired with 11, 19, and 27 slice-encoding steps (SESs), respectively. For each raw dataset, postprocessing was performed with variations of the parameters: (1) number of iterations (5, 10, 20, 30, 50) and (2) normalization factor (0.0005, 0.001, 0.002, 0.003, 0.005). Following, in clinical magnetic resonance scans of patients with THA, identical STIR, T1-w, and T2-w pulse sequences with 11 and 19 SESs were acquired and were postprocessed similarly with variations in parameters. Semiquantitative outcome measures were assessed on a 5-point scale (1 = best, 5 = worst). The overall best image quality was determined. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, t-tests, multivariate regression models, and partial Spearman correlations., Results: Scan times varied between 2:24 (T2-w, 11 SESs) and 8:49 minutes (STIR, 27 SESs). Reconstruction times varied between 3:14 minutes (T1-w, 11 SESs, 5 iterations) and 85:00 minutes (T2-w, 27 SESs, 50 iterations). Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio increased with increasing SESs, iterations, and normalization factor. In phantom scans, artifact reduction was optimal with an intermediate normalization factor (0.001) and improved with higher SESs and iterations. However, iterations greater than 20 did not improve artifact reduction or image quality further. On the contrary, ripple artifacts increased with higher SESs and iterations. In clinical scans, up to 20 iterations reduced blurring of the image; no further reduction was observed with iterations greater than 20. A normalization factor of 0.001 or 0.002 was best for reduction of blurring, whereas the soft tissue contrast was better and the distortion of soft tissue was less severe with lower normalization factors. Overall best soft tissue image quality was found for STIR and T1-w images with 19 SESs, 10 iterations, and a normalization factor of 0.001, and for T2-w images with 11 SESs, 10 iterations, and a normalization factor of 0.0005., Conclusions: Optimized advanced acceleration and reconstruction algorithms of CS-SEMAC have been identified to reduce metal artifacts in patients with THA enabling imaging with clinically feasible acquisition and reconstruction times.

Objective: Compressed sensing (CS) acceleration has been theorized for slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC), but has not been shown to be feasible. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that CS-SEMAC is feasible for MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants., Materials and Methods: Following prospective institutional review board approval, 22 subjects with metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants underwent 1.5 T MRI. We compared CS-SEMAC prototype, high-bandwidth TSE, and SEMAC sequences with acquisition times of 4-5, 4-5 and 10-12 min, respectively. Outcome measures included bone-implant interfaces, image quality, periprosthetic structures, artifact size, and signal- and contrast-to-noise ratios (SNR and CNR). Using Friedman, repeated measures analysis of variances, and Cohen's weighted kappa tests, Bonferroni-corrected p-values of 0.005 and less were considered statistically significant., Results: There was no statistical difference of outcomes measures of SEMAC and CS-SEMAC images. Visibility of implant-bone interfaces and pseudocapsule as well as fat suppression and metal reduction were "adequate" to "good" on CS-SEMAC and "non-diagnostic" to "adequate" on high-BW TSE (p < 0.001, respectively). SEMAC and CS-SEMAC showed mild blur and ripple artifacts. The metal artifact size was 63 % larger for high-BW TSE as compared to SEMAC and CS-SEMAC (p < 0.0001, respectively). CNRs were sufficiently high and statistically similar, with the exception of CNR of fluid and muscle and CNR of fluid and tendon, which were higher on intermediate-weighted high-BW TSE (p < 0.005, respectively)., Conclusion: Compressed sensing acceleration enables the time-neutral use of SEMAC for MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implants when compared to high-BW TSE and image quality similar to conventional SEMAC.

Background: External snapping hip syndrome (ESH) is postulated to be one of the causes of greater trochanteric pain syndrome, which also includes greater trochanteric bursitis and tendinopathy or tears of the hip abductor mechanism. However, it was not yet described what kind of bony morphology can cause the snapping and whether symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals have different imaging features. Purpose: It was the purpose of this study to look for predisposing morphological factors for ESH and to differentiate between painful and asymptomatic snapping. Methods: A consecutive cohort with ESH and available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between 2014 and 2019 was identified. The control group consisted of patients that underwent corrective osteotomies around the knee for mechanical axis correction and never complained of hip symptoms nor had undergone previous hip procedures. The following parameters were blindly assessed for determination of risk factors for ESH: CCD (corpus collum diaphysis) angle; femoral and global offset; femoral antetorsion; functional femoral antetorsion; translation of the greater trochanter (GT); posterior tilt of the GT; pelvic width/anterior pelvic length; intertrochanteric width. Hip and pelvic offset indexes were calculated as ratios of femoral/global offset and intertrochanteric/pelvic width, respectively. For the comparison of symptomatic and asymptomatic snapping, the following soft-tissue signs were investigated: presence of trochanteric bursitis or gluteal tendinopathy; presence of surface bony irregularities on trochanter major and ITB (Iliotibial band) thickness. Results: A total of 31 hips with ESH were identified. The control group (n = 29) consisted of patients matched on both age (± 1) and gender. Multiple regression analysis determined an increased hip offset index to be independent predictor of ESH (r = + 0.283, p = 0.025), most likely due to the higher femoral offset in the ESH group (p = 0.031). Pearson correlation analysis could not identify any significant secondary factors. No differences were found between painful and asymptomatic snapping on MRI. Conclusions: A high hip offset index was found as an independent predictor for external snapping hip in our cohort, mainly due to increased femoral offset. No imaging soft-tissue related differences could be outlined between symptomatic and asymptomatic external snapping. Level of evidence III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00590. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]