ArticleSkeletal radiology2021
Metal artifacts of hip arthroplasty implants at 1.5-T and 3.0-T: a closer look into the B
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distortion correction in TSE near titanium implants at 0.55 T using reversed frequency-encoding and model-based reconstruction.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Radon-Guided Wavelet-Domain Attention U-Net for Periodic Artifact Suppression in Brain MRI.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- MRI-guided sacroiliac joint injections in children and adults: current practice and future developments.Skeletal radiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of circular polarization (CP) and elliptical polarization (EP) of the B MATERIAL AND
methodsIn vitro Ti and CoCr total hip arthroplasty implants were evaluated using high transmit and receive bandwidth turbo spin echo (HBW-TSE) and slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC) metal artifact reduction techniques. Each technique was implemented at 1.5-T, which only allows for CP of B
resultsIn the acetabular cup and femoral neck, 1.5-T CP achieved smaller artifact sizes than 3.0-T CP (28-29% on HBW-TSE, p = 0.002-0.005; 17-34% on SEMAC, p = 0.019-0.102) and 3.0-T EP (25-28% on HBW-TSE, p = 0.010-0.011; 14-36% on SEMAC, p = 0.058-0.135) techniques. In the femoral stem region, 3.0-T EP achieved more efficient artifact suppression than 3.0-T CP (HBW-TSE 44-45%, p < 0.001-0.022; SEMAC 76-104%, p < 0.001-0.022) and 1.5-T CP (HBW-TSE 76-96%, p < 0.001-0.003; SEMAC 138-173%, p = 0.003-0.005) techniques.
conclusionDespite slightly superior metal reduction ability of the 1.5-T in the region of the acetabular cup and prosthesis neck, 3.0-T MRI of hip arthroplasty implants using elliptically polarized RF pulses may overall be more effective in reducing metal artifacts than the current standard 1.5-T MRI techniques, which by default implements circularly polarized RF pulses.
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.