Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 183–193

Current applications of advanced cross-sectional imaging techniques in evaluating the painful arthroplasty

Review Article

Abstract

Patients with a painful arthroplasty can present a clinical diagnostic dilemma. Aspirates are often negative for infection and alignment of the prosthesis on conventional radiographs is usually satisfactory. These patients can have a myriad of soft tissue as well as osseous pathologies, which may be clinically unsuspected or radiographically occult. The ability of advanced cross-sectional imaging to diagnose osseous and soft tissue injuries has been well documented, but applications to arthroplasty imaging are often limited by regional metallic artifacts. Adjustment of standard imaging parameters can make CT and MR imaging useful adjuncts in imaging the painful arthroplasty, especially in the setting of normal radiographs. Ultrasound can be used to evaluate the periprosthetic soft tissues and provide a real-time method of evaluating the dynamic relationship of the periprosthetic soft tissues to the arthroplasty components, and it also can be used as a guide for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

Keywords

Arthroplasty Osteolysis Periprosthetic soft tissues Metallic artifact Interventional sonography 

References

  1. 1.
    Gould ES, Potter HG, Bober SE. Role of routine percutaneous aspirations prior to prosthesis revision. Skeletal Radiol 1990;19(6):427–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tate D Jr, Sculco TP. Advances in total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 1998;27(4):274–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White LM, Buckwalter KA. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Sem Musculoskel Radiol 2002;6(1):5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Young Dr, Robb RA, Rock MG, Chao EY. Analysis of periprosthetic tissue formation around a porous titanium endoprosthesis using CT-based spatial reconstruction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18(3):461–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fiala TG, Novelline RA, Yaremchuk MJ. Comparison of CT imaging artifacts from craniomaxillofacial internal fixation devices. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993;92(7):1227–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhao S, Robertson DD, Wang G, Whiting B, Bae KT. X-ray CT metal artifact reduction using wavelets: an application for imaging total hip prostheses. IEEE Trans Medical Imag 2000;19(12):1238–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, Jung B, Heussen N, Flohr TG, et al. A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Invest Radiol 2003;38(12):769–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckwalter KA, Parr JA, Choplin RH, Capello WN. Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskel Radiol 2006;10(1):86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haramati N, Staron RB, Mazel-Sperling K, Freeman K, Nickoloff EL, Barax C, et al. CT scans through metal: scanning technique versus hardware composition. Comput Med Imag Graph 1994;18:429–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van der Schaaf I, van Leeuwen M, Vlassenbroek A, Velthuis B. Minimizing clip artifacts in multi CT angiography of clipped patients. Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:60–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flohr T, Stierstorfer K, Bruder H, Simon J, Polacin A, Schaller S. Image reconstruction and image quality evaluation for a 16-slice CT scanner. Med Phys 2003;30(5):832–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dalal T, Kalra MK, Rizzo SMR, Schmidt B, Suess C, Flohr T, et al. Metallic prosthesis: technique to avoid increase in CT radiation dose with automatic tube current modulation in a phantom and patients. Radiology 2005;236:671–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Link TM, Berning W, Scherf S, Joosten U, Joist A, Engelke K, et al. CT of metal implants: reduction of artifacts using an extended CT scale technique. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;24(1):165–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fishman EK, Magid D, Robertson DD, Brooker AF, Weiss P, Siegelman SS. Metallic hip implants: CT with multiplanar reconstruction. Radiology 1986;160:675–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Claus AM, Totterman SM, Sychterz CJ, Tamez-Pena JG, Looney RJ, Engh CA. Computed tomography to assess pelvic lysis after total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Rel Research 2004;422:167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yian EH, Werner CML, Nyffeler RW, Pfirrmann CW, Ramappa A, Sukthankar A, et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87-A(9):1928–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Koyama T, Yoshikawa H. Multidetector-CT evaluation of bone substitutes remodeling after revision hip surgery. Clin Orthop Rel Research 2006;442:158–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Math KR, Zaidi SF, Petchprapa C, Harwin SF. Imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskel Radiol 2006;10(1):47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sofka CM, Potter HG. MR imaging of joint arthroplasty. Sem Musculoskel Radiol 2002;6(1):79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olscamp AJ, Tao SS, Savolaine ER, Ebraheim NA. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of Pipkin fractures fixated with titanium implants: a report of two cases. Am J Orthoped 1997;26(4):294–7.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henk CB, Brodner W, Grampp S, Breitenscher M, Thurnher M, Mostbeck GH, et al. The postoperative spine. Top Magn Reson Imag 1999;10:247–64.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mueller PR, Stark DD, Simeone JF, Saini S, Butch RS, Edelman RR, et al. MR-guided aspiration biopsy: needle design and clinical trials. Radiology 1986;161:605–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M, Merchant N, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2000;215:254–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frazzini VI, Kagetsu NJ, Johnson CE, Destian S. Internally stabilized spine: optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology 1997;204:268–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guermazi A, Miaux Y, Zaim S, Peterfy CG, White D, Genant HK. Metallic artifacts in MR imaging: effects of main field orientation and strength. Clin Radiol 2003;58:322–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Venook RD, Matter NI, Ramachandran M, Ungersma SE, Gold GE, Giori NJ, et al. Prepolarized magnetic resonance imaging around metal orthopedic implants. Mag Res Med 2006;56:177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tartaglino LM, Flanders AE, Vinitski S, Friedman DP. Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology 1994;190:565–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Potter HG, Foo LF. Magnetic resonance imaging of joint arthroplasty. Orthop Clin NA 2006;37:361–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naraghi AM, White LM. Magnetic resonance imaging of joint replacements. Semin Musculoskel Radiol 2006;10(1):98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hilfiker P, Zanetti M, Debatin JF, McKinnon G, Hodler J. Fast spin-echo inversion-recovery imaging versus fast T2-weighted spin-echo imaging in bone marrow abnormalities. Invest Radiol 1995;30:110–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hendrick RE. Basic physics of MR imaging: an introduction. Radiographics 1994;17:829–46.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Taber KH, Herrick RC, Weathers SW, Kumar AJ, Schomer DF, Hayman LA. Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine. Radiographics 1998;18:1499–521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cook SM, Pellicci PM, Potter HG. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of an occult fracture of the femoral component after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A(1):149–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sperling JW, Potter HG, Craig EV, Flatow E, Warren RF. MRI of the painful shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2002;11:315–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sofka CM, Potter HG, Figgie M, Laskin R. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;406:129–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati E. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A(9):1947–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Twain A, Ryan M, O’Connell M, Powell T, O’Byrne J, Eustace S. MRI of failed total hip replacement caused by abductor muscle avulsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1547–50.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pfirrmann CWA, Notzli HP, Dora C, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Abductor tendons and muscles assessed at MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Radiology 2005;235:969–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Weiland DE, Walde TA, Leung SB, Sychterz CJ, Ho S, Engh CA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation if periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Research 2005;23:713–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sofka CM, Adler RS. Sonographic evaluation of shoulder arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(4):1117–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cuomo F, Checroun A. Avoiding pitfalls and complications in total shoulder arthroplasty. Ortho Clin North Am 1998;29:507–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jacobson JA, Lax MJ. Musculoskeletal sonography of the postoperative orthopedic patient. Sem Musculoskel Radiol 2002;6(1):67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wank R, Miller TT, Shapiro JF. Sonographically guided injection of anesthetic for iliopsoas tendinopathy after total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Ultrasound 2004;32(7):354–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rezig R, Copercini M, Montet X, Martinoli C, Bianchi S. Ultrasound diagnosis of anterior iliopsoas impingement in total hip replacement. Skeletal Radiol 2004;33:112–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Adler RS, Buly R, Ambrose R, Sculco T. Diagnostic and therapeutic use of sonography-guided iliopsoas peritendinous injections. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:940–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Blankenbaker DG, DeSmet AA, Keene JS. Sonography of the iliopsoas tendon and injection of the iliopsoas bursa for diagnosis and management of the painful snapping hip. Skeletal Radiol 2006;35:565–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Holsbeeck MT, Eyler WR, Sherman LS, Lombardi TJ, Mezger E, Verner JJ, et al. Detection of infection in loosened hip prostheses: efficacy of sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1994;163(2):381–4.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fessell DP, Jacobson JA, Craig J, Habra G, Prasad A, Radcliff A, et al. Using sonography to reveal and aspirate joint effusions. Am J Roentgenol 2000;174(5):1353–62.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weybright PN, Jacobson JA, Murry KH, Lin J, Fessell DP, Jamador DA, et al. Limited effectiveness of sonography in revealing hip joint effusion: preliminary results in 21 adult patients, with native and post operative hips. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:215–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sofka CM, Adler RS, Laskin R. Sonography of polyethylene liners used in total knee arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(5):1437–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hospital for Special SurgeryWeill Medical College of Cornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations