ISSN 1004-4140
    CN 11-3017/P

    O-MAR技术在膝关节单髁置换术后的应用价值

    The Application Value of O-MAR Technology in Knee Unicondylar Arthroplasty

    • 摘要: 目的:探讨飞利浦去金属伪影算法(O-MAR)在去除膝关节单髁置换术后金属植入物伪影中的价值。方法:回顾性收集2024年1月至10月在河北医科大学第一医院实施膝关节单髁置换术患者100例,均应用飞利浦Incisive 64排CT进行扫描,运用O-MAR对扫描后数据进行重建,自动生成Non O-MAR及O-MAR两组图像。对比两组重建图像膝关节假体周围骨组织、肌肉的信噪比(SNR)及伪影指数(AI)用以评估伪影情况,采用GE AW4.7工作站对薄层图像数据进行三维重建并分别测量每组数据线束硬化伪影和骨组织及假体体积总和,Non O-MAR组三维图像体积与O-MAR组三维图像体积之差为伪影减少体积。由2名高年资影像医师对膝关节断层及三维图像进行主观评分用以评估成像质量效果。结果:两组图像O-MAR组膝关节假体周围骨组织、肌肉SNR均有升高,AI均有降低,O-MAR组膝关节整体主观评分高于Non O-MAR组,两者差异具有统计学意义。Non O-MAR组三维图像体积为(259.59±70.76)cm3,O-MAR组三维图像体积为(203.02±58.37)cm3,两者差别有统计学意义。O-MAR组三维图像体积较Non O-MAR组减少21.79%。结论:膝关节单髁置换术后患者CT检查,应用O-MAR技术可最大限度消除金属伪影,并充分显示邻近组织,更有助于膝关节单髁置换术后复查和临床诊断。

       

      Abstract: Objective: This study evaluated the value of the Philips Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction (O-MAR) algorithm for reducing metal implant phantom following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on 100 patients who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at the First Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January to October 2024. All patients underwent CT using a Philips Incisive 64-slice scanner, and the post-scan data were reconstructed using O-MAR to generate images with and without O-MAR correction (O-MAR and non-O-MAR images). The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and artifact index (AI) of periarticular bone and muscle tissues in both reconstructed images were compared to evaluate phantom formation. Thin-section images were reconstructed using a GE AW4.7 workstation, followed by measurements of linear streak artifacts and the total volumes of bone tissue and prostheses in each group. The volume reduction due to phantom suppression was calculated as the difference between non-O-MAR and O-MAR volumes. Two senior radiologists conducted subjective evaluations of both cross-sectional and 3D imaging quality. Results: The signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of bone and muscle tissues were significantly higher in the O-MAR images than in the non-O-MAR images, whereas the artifact index (AI) was significantly lower in the O-MAR group. The O-MAR group demonstrated significantly higher subjective knee joint scores than the non-O-MAR group. Three-dimensional imaging volumes were measured as (259.59±70.76) cm3 for the non-O-MAR group and (203.02±58.37) cm3 for the O-MAR group, with a statistically significant difference. The three-dimensional image volume in the O-MAR group was 21.79% less than that in the non-O-MAR group. Conclusion: In patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, the O-MAR algorithm effectively reduced metal artifacts, improved image quality, and enhanced visualization of the surrounding tissues.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回