Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fishman, E. K.
Right arrow Articles by Siegelman, S. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fishman, E. K.
Right arrow Articles by Siegelman, S. S.

Radiology, Vol 160, 675-681, Copyright © 1986 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Metallic hip implants: CT with multiplanar reconstruction

EK Fishman, D Magid, DD Robertson, AF Brooker, P Weiss and SS Siegelman

Thirty consecutive patients with metallic implants in the hip were evaluated with both standard transaxial computed tomography (CT) and multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) to assess the contribution of MPR. The metallic devices included total hip replacements (n = 6), one or more surgical plates with screws (n = 9), acetabular pins or screws (n = 9), and Knowles pins (n = 6). The metallic implants were on the side of interest in 25 hips and in the contralateral hip in five cases. One patient had bilateral hardware. MPR reformats axially acquired data into other planes. The reconstruction program weights the true signal over the randomly distributed artifacts by integrating adjacent axial images. Examination using standard transaxial imaging was graded as excellent in five cases, adequate in 15 cases, and inadequate in ten cases. After MPR, 19 studies were classified as excellent, 11 were classified as adequate, and none were classified as inadequate. It is concluded that MPR significantly reduced artifacts caused by metal present in transaxial images.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
E. E. Rutherford, L. J. Tarplett, E. M. Davies, J. M. Harley, and L. J. King
Lumbar Spine Fusion and Stabilization: Hardware, Techniques, and Imaging Appearances
RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1737 - 1749.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
K. Ohashi, G. Y. El-Khoury, D. L. Bennett, J. M. Restrepo, and K. S. Berbaum
Orthopedic Hardware Complications Diagnosed with Multi-Detector Row CT
Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 570 - 577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
C. Cyteval, V. Hamm, M. P. Sarrabere, F. M. Lopez, P. Maury, and P. Taourel
Painful Infection at the Site of Hip Prosthesis: CT Imaging
Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 477 - 483.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
L. Puri, R. L. Wixson, S. H. Stern, J. Kohli, R. W. Hendrix, and S. D. Stulberg
Use of Helical Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Acetabular Osteolysis After Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 2002; 84(4): 609 - 614.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1986 by the Radiological Society of North America.