ArticleSkeletal radiology2017
Comparative study of fat-suppression techniques for hip arthroplasty MR imaging.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Managing hardware-related metal artifacts in MRI: current and evolving techniques.Skeletal radiology · 2024Review
- Evaluating Compressed SENSE (CS) MRI Metal Artifact Reduction Using Pig L-Spine Phantom and Transplant Patients: Focused on the CS-SEMAC (SPIR), mDixon(O-MAR) and STIR Techniques.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- SimultaneousInternational orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Pelvic bone tumor resection: post-operative imaging.Skeletal radiology · 2021Review
- Two-point Dixon fat-water swapping artifact: lesion mimicker at musculoskeletal T2-weighted MRI.Skeletal radiology · 2020Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT/CT) in painful total hip arthroplasty: a comparative multi-institutional analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- mDixon ECG-gated 3-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance angiography in patients with congenital cardiovascular disease.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe goal of this study was to evaluate different fat-suppressed fluid-sensitive sequences in association with different metal artifacts reduction techniques (MARS) to determine which combination allows better fat suppression around metallic hip implants.
methodsAn experimental study using an MRI fat-water phantom quantitatively evaluated contrast shift induced by metallic hip implant for different fat-suppression techniques and MARS. Then a clinical study with patients addressed to MRI unit for painful hip prosthesis compared these techniques in terms of fat suppression quality and diagnosis confidence.
resultsAmong sequences without MARS, both T2 Dixon and short tau inversion recuperation (STIR) had significantly lower contrast shift (p < 0.05), Dixon offering the best fat suppression. Adding MARS (view-angle tilting or slice-encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC)) to STIR gave better results than Dixon alone, and also better than SPAIR and fat saturation with MARS (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between STIR with view-angle tilting and STIR with SEMAC in terms of fat suppression quality.
conclusionsSTIR sequence is the preferred fluid-sensitive MR sequence in patients with metal implant. In combination with MARS (view-angle tilting or SEMAC), STIR appears to be the best option for high-quality fat suppression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.