Acute vertebral fracture after spinal fusion: a case report illustrating the added value of single-source dual-energy computed tomography to magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with spinal Instrumentation

Rapid-kilovoltage-switching dual-energy computed tomography (CT) for differentiating spinal osteolytic metastases from spinal infections

Background

Rapid-kilovoltage-switching dual-energy computed tomography (RDECT) is a non-invasive, alternative technique for quantitative diagnosis. This study aimed to investigate the value of RDECT for differentiating spinal osteolytic metastases (SOM) from spinal infections (SIs).

Methods

RDECT was performed on 29 patients with SOM and 18 patients with SIs. Both iodine-based and water-based material decomposition images were generated from the spectral CT scan. The iodine/water densities of lesions on iodine/water material-decomposition images and the CT attenuation values on traditional CT images were measured three times at different image levels, and the averages were calculated. The lesion-to-muscle ratio (LMR) and lesion-to-artery ratio (LAR) for iodine density measurements were calculated. All parameters were compared between the two groups using the two-tailed Student's t-test. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating SOM from SIs were determined using receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC).

Results

Iodine density, LMR, and LAR during the arterial phase (AP) and venous phase (VP) were all significantly higher for SOM than for SIs (all P<0.05). The water densities and traditional CT attenuation values during the AP and VP were not significantly different between the two groups. For ROC analysis, LAR during the VP (LAR_VP) showed the best diagnostic performance, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) value of 0.862. When the LARVP was 0.54, the sensitivity was 82.80% and the specificity was 77.80% for differentiating SOM from SIs.

Conclusions

RDECT can provide additional information that may be useful for differentiating atypical SOM from SIs.

Advances in MRI around metal

The prevalence of orthopedic metal implants is continuously rising in the aging society. Particularly the number of joint replacements is increasing. Although satisfying long-term results are encountered, patients may suffer from complaints or complications during follow-up, and often undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Yet metal implants cause severe artifacts on MRI, resulting in signal-loss, signal-pileup, geometric distortion, and failure of fat suppression. In order to allow for adequate treatment decisions, metal artifact reduction sequences (MARS) are essential for proper radiological evaluation of postoperative findings in these patients. During recent years, developments of musculoskeletal imaging have addressed this particular technical challenge of postoperative MRI around metal. Besides implant material composition, configuration and location, selection of appropriate MRI hardware, sequences, and parameters influence artifact genesis and reduction. Application of dedicated metal artifact reduction techniques including high bandwidth optimization, view angle tilting (VAT), and the multispectral imaging techniques multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination (MAVRIC) and slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) may significantly reduce metal-induced artifacts, although at the expense of signal-to-noise ratio and/or acquisition time. Adding advanced image acquisition techniques such as parallel imaging, partial Fourier transformation, and advanced reconstruction techniques such as compressed sensing further improves MARS imaging in a clinically feasible scan time. This review focuses on current clinically applicable MARS techniques. Understanding of the main principles and techniques including their limitations allows a considerate application of these techniques in clinical practice. Essential orthopedic metal implants and postoperative MR findings around metal are presented and highlighted with clinical examples.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:972-991.