Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging artifact with cobalt-chromium versus titanium spinal instrumentation

Presented at the 2013 Joint Spine Section Meeting 

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Neurological Surgery and
  • 2 Neuroradiology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

Object

Cobalt-chromium alloy (CoCr) rods haves some preferred biomechanical properties over titanium rods for spinal fixation. The use of CoCr rods in spinal fusion is relatively new, and there is no study in the existing world literature assessing the artifact caused by these rods in patients undergoing postoperative MRI. The purpose of this study is to compare the amount of imaging artifact caused by these implants and to assess its impact on the visualization of neighboring neural structures.

Methods

This study investigated MR images in patients who underwent implantation of thoracolumbar instrumentation using 5.5-mm-diameter CoCr rods between November 2009 and March 2011 and images obtained in a comparison group of patients who had 5.5-mm titanium rods implanted during the same time period. Axial measurements of the artifact created by the rods between the screw heads were compared between the groups. Two blinded board-certified radiologists performed the measurements independently. They scored the visualization of the spinal canal using a subjective scoring system of 1–3, with 1 representing very good visualization and 2 and 3 representing reduced (good or suboptimal, respectively) visualization as a result of rod-related artifact. All measurements and scores were independently provided for T1-weighted and T2-weighted fast spin echo sequences (1.5-T magnet, 5-mm slice thickness).

Results

A total of 40 levels from the CoCr group (6 patients) and 30 levels from the titanium group (9 patients) were included in the analysis. Visualization of the canal at all levels was rated a score of 1 (very good) by both evaluators for both the CoCr and titanium groups. The average artifact on T1-weighted images measured 11.8 ± 1.8 mm for the CoCr group and 8.5 ± 1.2 mm for the titanium group (p < 0.01). The corresponding measurements on T2-weighted images were 11.0 ± 2.3 mm and 8.3 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.01), respectively. In a mixed regression model, the mean artifact measurement for the CoCr group was, on average, 3.5 mm larger than for the control group. There was no significant difference between the measurements of the 2 evaluators (p = 0.99).

Conclusions

The artifact caused by CoCr rods is approximately 3.5 mm larger than that caused by titanium rods on axial T1- and T2-weighted MRI. However, artifact from either CoCr or titanium was not found to interfere with the evaluation of the spinal canal and surrounding neural elements.

Abbreviations used in this paper:TE = echo time; TR = repetition time.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to: Michael Y. Wang, M.D., Lois Pope Life Center, Department of Neurological Surgery, 1095 NW 14th Terrace, Miami, FL 33136. email: MWang2@med.miami.edu.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online September 20, 2013; DOI: 10.3171/2013.7.SPINE1359.

  • 1

    Antosh IJ, , DeVine JG, , Carpenter CT, , Woebkenberg BJ, & Yoest SM: Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of adjacent segments after cervical disc arthroplasty: magnet strength and its effect on image quality. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 13:722726, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Buckwalter KA, , Lin C, & Ford JM: Managing postoperative artifacts on computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 15:309319, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Ernstberger T, , Buchhorn G, & Heidrich G: Artifacts in spine magnetic resonance imaging due to different intervertebral test spacers: an in vitro evaluation of magnesium versus titanium and carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers as biomaterials. Neuroradiology 51:525529, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Ernstberger T, & Heidrich G: Postfusion magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by a titanium, cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and carbon intervertebral disc spacer. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:154159, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Ernstberger T, , Heidrich G, & Buchhorn G: Postimplantation MRI with cylindric and cubic intervertebral test implants: evaluation of implant shape, material, and volume in MRI artifacting—an in vitro study. Spine J 7:353359, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Ernstberger T, , Heidrich G, , Dullin C, , Buchhorn G, & Grabbe E: Preclinical evaluation by flat-panel detector-based volumetric CT versus MRI of intervertebral spacers implanted in a porcine model. Spine J 7:360367, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Ernstberger T, , Heidrich G, , Schultz W, & Grabbe E: Implant detectibility of intervertebral disc spacers in post fusion MRI: evaluation of the MRI scan quality by using a scoring system—an in vitro study. Neuroradiology 49:103109, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Knott PT, , Mardjetko SM, , Kim RH, , Cotter TM, , Dunn MM, & Patel ST, : A comparison of magnetic and radiographic imaging artifact after using three types of metal rods: stainless steel, titanium, and vitallium. Spine J 10:789794, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Lee MC, , Wang MY, , Fessler RG, , Liauw J, & Kim DH: Instrumentation in patients with spinal infection. Neurosurg Focus 17:6 E7, 2004

  • 10

    Lieberman IH, & Webb JK: Occipito-cervical fusion using posterior titanium plates. Eur Spine J 7:308312, 1998

  • 11

    Masumi S, , Arita M, , Morikawa M, & Toyoda S: Effect of dental metals on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). J Oral Rehabil 20:97106, 1993

  • 12

    Michael AL, , Loughenbury PR, , Rao AS, , Dunsmuir RA, & Millner PA: A survey of current controversies in scoliosis surgery in the United Kingdom. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:15731578, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Nguyen TQ, , Buckley JM, , Ames C, & Deviren V: The fatigue life of contoured cobalt chrome posterior spinal fusion rods. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225:194198, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Raphael B, , Haims AH, , Wu JS, , Katz LD, , White LM, & Lynch K: MRI comparison of periprosthetic structures around zirconium knee prostheses and cobalt chrome prostheses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:17711777, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Rudisch A, , Kremser C, , Peer S, , Kathrein A, , Judmaier W, & Daniaux H: Metallic artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging of patients with spinal fusion. A comparison of implant materials and imaging sequences. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:692699, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Scheer JK, , Tang JA, , Deviren V, , Acosta F, , Buckley JM, & Pekmezci M, : Biomechanical analysis of cervicothoracic junction osteotomy in cadaveric model of ankylosing spondylitis: effect of rod material and diameter. Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 14:330335, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Serhan H, , Slivka M, , Albert T, & Kwak SD: Is galvanic corrosion between titanium alloy and stainless steel spinal implants a clinical concern?. Spine J 4:379387, 2004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Starcuková J, , Starcuk Z Jr, , Hubálková H, & Linetskiy I: Magnetic susceptibility and electrical conductivity of metallic dental materials and their impact on MR imaging artifacts. Dent Mater 24:715723, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Tartaglino LM, , Flanders AE, , Vinitski S, & Friedman DP: Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 190:565569, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Thomsen M, , Schneider U, , Breusch SJ, , Hansmann J, & Freund M: [Artefacts and ferromagnetism dependent on different metal alloys in magnetic resonance imaging. An experimental study.]. Orthopäde 30:540544, 2001. (Ger)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Trammell TR, , Flint K, & Ramsey CJ: A comparison of MRI and CT imaging clarity of titanium alloy and titanium alloy with cobalt-chromium-alloy pedicle screw and rod implants in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:14791483, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Wang JC, , Sandhu HS, , Yu WD, , Minchew JT, & Delamarter RB: MR parameters for imaging titanium spinal instrumentation. J Spinal Disord 10:2732, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Wang JC, , Yu WD, , Sandhu HS, , Tam V, & Delamarter RB: A comparison of magnetic resonance and computed tomographic image quality after the implantation of tantalum and titanium spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:16841688, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 653 405 18
Full Text Views 164 39 2
PDF Downloads 295 37 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0