Woisetschläger M, Booij R, Tesselaar E, Oei EHG, Schilcher J. Improved visualization of the bone-implant interface and osseointegration in ex vivo acetabular cup implants using photon-counting detector CT.
Eur Radiol Exp 2023;
7:19. [PMID:
37121937 PMCID:
PMC10149426 DOI:
10.1186/s41747-023-00335-y]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/28/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Successful osseointegration of joint replacement implants is required for long-term implant survival. Accurate assessment of osseointegration could enable clinical discrimination of failed implants from other sources of pain avoiding unnecessary surgeries. Photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) provides improvements in image resolution compared to conventional energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT), possibly allowing better visualization of bone-implant-interfaces and osseointegration. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of visualization of bone-implant-interfaces and osseointegration in acetabular cup implants, using PCD-CT compared with EID-CT.
METHODS
Two acetabular implants (one cemented, one uncemented) retrieved during revision surgery were scanned using PCD-CT and EID-CT at equal radiation dose. Images were reconstructed using different reconstruction kernels and iterative strengths. Delineation of the bone-implant and bone-cement-interface as an indicator of osseointegration was scored subjectively for image quality by four radiologists on a Likert scale and assessed quantitatively.
RESULTS
Delineation of bone-implant and bone-cement-interfaces was better with PCD-CT compared with EID-CT (p ≤ 0.030). The highest ratings were given for PCD-CT at sharper kernels for the cemented cup (PCD-CT, median 5, interquartile range 4.25-5.00 versus EID-CT, 3, 2.00-3.75, p < 0.001) and the uncemented cup (5, 4.00-5.00 versus 2, 2-2, respectively, p < 0.001). The bone-implant-interface was 35-42% sharper and the bone-cement-interface was 28-43% sharper with PCD-CT compared with EID-CT, depending on the reconstruction kernel.
CONCLUSIONS
PCD-CT might enable a more accurate assessment of osseointegration of orthopedic joint replacement implants.
KEY POINTS
• The bone-implant interface ex vivo showed superior visualization using photon-counting detector computed tomography (PCD-CT) compared to energy-integrating detector computed tomography. • Harder reconstruction kernels in PCD-CT provide sharper images with lower noise levels. • These improvements in imaging might make it possible to visualize osseointegration in vivo.
Collapse