ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Optimizing knee MRI near orthopedic hardware using a 3D-printed anatomical phantom.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Introduction to the special issue on imaging of the knee.Skeletal radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate whether a dedicated, anatomically realistic knee phantom with orthopedic implants can be used to optimize clinical MRI sequences under realistic metallic conditions and to assess whether phantom-optimized sequences improve image quality compared with routine protocols. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 3D-printed knee phantom integrating a titanium screw and a stainless-steel fixation plate was developed. Phantom imaging was performed on a clinical 1.5 T MRI system. In this exploratory proof-of-concept study, T1w and STIR sequences were iteratively optimized using the phantom and compared with vendor-default and routine clinical protocols. The phantom-optimized sequences were subsequently applied in three asymptomatic volunteers with metallic knee implants and compared with routine sequences. Image quality was independently assessed by four blinded readers using a 5-point Likert scale across spatial resolution, artifact reduction, and overall image quality.
resultsPhantom-optimized sequences achieved significantly higher image quality scores compared with routine protocols. Improvements were consistent across all three predefined criteria: spatial resolution (mean increase +0.70 points, p < 0.001), artifact reduction (+0.65, p < 0.001), and overall image quality (+0.78, p < 0.001). These gains were observed for both T1-weighted and STIR acquisitions without extending acquisition times.
conclusionPhantom-guided optimization provides a reproducible, patient-independent framework for tuning MRI protocols near orthopedic hardware. Anatomically realistic phantoms represent a promising methodological tool for developing, testing, and standardizing MRI sequences under controlled and clinically relevant conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41591485What 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.