ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2024
An interactive task-based method for the avoidance of metal artifacts in CBCT.
Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual bone-implant contact surface effect on implant stability in fresh extraction and healed sites: a pilot randomised clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Parametric-MAA: fast, object-centric avoidance of metal artifacts for intraoperative CBCT.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntraoperative cone-beam CT imaging enables 3D validation of implant positioning and fracture reduction for orthopedic and trauma surgeries. However, the emergence of metal artifacts, especially in the vicinity of metallic objects, severely degrades the clinical value of the imaging modality. In previous works, metal artifact avoidance (MAA) methods have been shown to reduce metal artifacts by adapting the scanning trajectory. Yet, these methods fail to translate to clinical practice due to remaining methodological constraints and missing workflow integration.
methodsIn this work, we propose a method to compute the spatial distribution and calibrated strengths of expected artifacts for a given tilted circular trajectory. By visualizing this as an overlay changing with the C-Arm's tilt, we enable the clinician to interactively choose an optimal trajectory while factoring in the procedural context and clinical task. We then evaluate this method in a realistic human cadaver study and compare the achieved image quality to acquisitions optimized using global metrics.
resultsWe assess the effectiveness of the compared methods by evaluation of image quality gradings of depicted pedicle screws. We find that both global metrics as well as the proposed visualization of artifact distribution enable a drastic improvement compared to standard non-tilted scans. Furthermore, the novel interactive visualization yields a significant improvement in subjective image quality compared to the state-of-the-art global metrics. Additionally we show that by formulating an imaging task, the proposed method allows to selectively optimize image quality and avoid artifacts in the region of interest.
conclusionWe propose a method to spatially resolve predicted artifacts and provide a calibrated measure for artifact strength grading. This interactive MAA method proved practical and effective in reducing metal artifacts in the conducted cadaver study. We believe this study serves as a crucial step toward clinical application of an MAA system to improve image quality and enhance the clinical validation of implant placement.
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.