A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK versus titanium implants: an in vitro comparison of susceptibility artifacts in CT and MR imaging. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • Titanium implants in spine surgery create imaging artifacts that complicate follow-up and radiation planning for spinal tumor patients.
  • Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketon (CFRP) implants are being evaluated for their ability to reduce these artifacts.
  • In tests, CFRP showed significantly less artifact intensity in CT scans compared to titanium, which could lead to improved imaging clarity and better treatment planning.

Article Abstract

Artifacts in computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to titanium implants in spine surgery are known to cause difficulties in follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and precise dose delivery in patients with spinal tumors. Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketon (CFRP) implants aim to reduce these artifacts. Our aim was to analyze susceptibility artifacts of these implants using a standardized in vitro model. Titanium and CFRP screw-rod phantoms were embedded in 3% agarose gel. Phantoms were scanned with Siemens Somatom AS Open and 3.0-T Siemens Skyra scanners. Regions of interest (ROIs) were plotted and analyzed for CT and MRI at clinically relevant localizations. CT voxel-based imaging analysis showed a significant difference of artifact intensity and central overlay between titanium and CFRP phantoms. For the virtual regions of the spinal canal, titanium implants (ti) presented - 30.7 HU vs. 33.4 HU mean for CFRP (p < 0.001), at the posterior margin of the vertebral body 68.9 HU (ti) vs. 59.8 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001) and at the anterior part of the vertebral body 201.2 HU (ti) vs. 70.4 HU (CFRP) (p < 0.001), respectively. MRI data was only visually interpreted due to the low sample size and lack of an objective measuring system as Hounsfield units in CT. CT imaging of the phantom with typical implant configuration for thoracic stabilization could demonstrate a significant artifact reduction in CFRP implants compared with titanium implants for evaluation of index structures. Radiolucency with less artifacts provides a better interpretation of follow-up imaging, radiation planning, and more precise dose delivery.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8338834PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10143-020-01384-2DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

titanium implants
12
carbon fiber-reinforced
8
susceptibility artifacts
8
titanium cfrp
8
titanium
5
implants
5
fiber-reinforced peek
4
peek versus
4
versus titanium
4
implants vitro
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!