Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of qualitative ratings. Mean cumulative values and respective standard deviations of all qualitative ratings among different reconstruction algorithms, sub-grouped by implant material configurations (screw/rod). Note significantly lower scores, i.e. higher image quality for carbon (C) screw compared to titanium (Ti) screw containing configurations. Rod material had comparably lower impact on image quality

From: Comparison of different CT metal artifact reduction strategies for standard titanium and carbon‐fiber reinforced polymer implants in sheep cadavers

  Ti/Ti Ti/C C/C C/Ti
sk SE 80 kV 16.3 ± 0.58 15 ± 0 1.08 ± 0.07 5.54 ± 1.53
bk SE 80 kV 16.3 ± 0.58 15 ± 0 1 ± 0.13 5.50 ± 1.42
sk SE 120 kV 16.3 ± 0.58 14.92 ± 0.14 0.75 ± 0.33 4.6 ± 0.19
bk SE 120 kV 16 ± 0 15 ± 0 0.5 ± 0.71 3.53 ± 0.30
sk SE 120 kV iMAR 15.36 ± 0.13 12.46 ± 2.15 0.42 ± 0.14 2.7 ± 0.17
sk DE 120 kV Mix 12.97 ± 2.71 12.21 ± 2.55 0.25 ± 0.25 2.10 ± 0.95
bk DE 120 kV Mix 12.63 ± 3.07 12.25 ± 2.54 0 ± 0 1.97 ± 0.91
sk SE Sn 150 kV 10.65 ± 0.65 10.21 ± 0.36 0 ± 0 0.53 ± 0.50
bk SE Sn 150 kV 10.35 ± 0.60 10.21 ± 0.36 0 ± 0 0.3 ± 0.3
sk DE ME 130 keV 10.25 ± 0.66 9.3 ± 0.63 0 ± 0 0 ± 0
bk DE ME 130 keV 9.92 ± 0.14 9.08 ± 0.80 0 ± 0 0 ± 0
  1. bk bone kernel, C carbon, DE dual energy, iMAR iterative metal artifact reduction (brand name), ME monoenergetic extrapolation, SE single energy, sk soft tissue kernel, Sn tin-filtered, Ti titanium