Advertisement

The place of arthrography for component loosening and hip aspiration for diagnosis of infection

  • E. de Thomasson
  • C. Strauss
  • O. Guingand
  • R. Palau
  • C. Mazel
Original articles

Summary

The aim of that study was to evaluate the place of arthrography for component loosening and of hip aspiration for diagnosing infection. 52 arthrograms were done under local anesthesia in radiology suites under fluoroscopic guidance. If no fluid was aspirated a non bacteriostatic saline solution was injected and reaspirated. Liquid was then analized. Component loosening was evaluated by plain films and by arthrography and compared to the surgical findings in all cases. The sensitivity of arthrography (94.5%) was better than that of plain films (83%) for evaluating socket loosening, but was worse (77%vs 92%) for femoral component evaluation. They were no false positive evaluations in socket loosening, but false negatives occurred in 2 cases with supporting material such as screws and plates. Results for femoral loosening are more difficult to analyse. The sensitivity (77%) and the specificity (81%) of arthrography are lower than plain films (92% and 88%). Most authors consider that the femoral component is loose when more than one third of the stem has a lucent line. 4 patients had such findings and were operated on. In each case the stem was found to be stable at operation. We removed the stem in two cases and left it in place in two old patients. We simply cleaned the granuloma from the proximal part of the femur. It means that arthrography did not really fail to make the diagnosis. But surgical procedures in case of incomplete radiolucent lines are not mandatory and depend on the individual surgeon's philosophy. Sensitivity of hip aspiration to identify periprosthetic germ was 66% and a specificity was 100%. No false positives were found. Only one patient over 41 without any sign of active infection had a positive hip aspiration. This test is not sensitive enough to be a prerequiste test before total hip revision but has to be done in cases of clinical or suspected sepsis.

Key words

Arthrography Second hip arthrography Hip aspiration Infection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dupont JA (1986) Significance of operative cultures in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 221: 122–127Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fehring TK, Cohen B (1996) Aspiration as a guide in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11: 543–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gould ES, Potter HG, Bober SE (1990) Rôle of routine percutaneous hip aspiration prior to prosthesis revision. Skeletal Radiol 19: 427–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hodgkinson JP, Shelley P, Wroblewski PM. (1988) The correlation between the roentgenographic appearance and operative findings at the bone-cement junction of the socket in Charnley low friction arthroplasties. Clinical Orthop 228: 105–109Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunter GA, Welsh RP, Cameron HU, Bailey WH (1979) The results of revision of total hip arthroplasty. JBJS 61B: 419–421Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    James ETR, Hunter GA, Cameron HU (1982) Total hip revision arthroplasty. Does sepsis influence the results? Clinical Orthop 170: 88–94Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krishnamurthy AB, MacDonald SJ, Paprosky WG (1997) 5 to 13 year follow up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12: 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee BP, Cabanela ME, Wallrichs SL, Ilstrup DM (1997) Bone graft augmentation for acetublar deficiencies in total hip arthroplasty. Result of long term follow up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 12: 503–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyons CW, Berquist TH, Lyons JC, Rand JA, Brown ML (1985) Evaluation of radiografic findings in painful hip arthroplasties. Clinical Orthop 195: 239–251Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maus TP, Berquist TH, Bender CE, Rand JA (1987) Arthrographic study of painful total hip arthroplasty: refined criteria. Radiology 162: 721–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maxon HR, Schneider HJ, Hopson CN, et al. (1988) A comparative study of Indium 111 DTPA radionuclide and iothalamate meglumine roentgenographic arthrography in the evaluation of painful total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 245: 156–159Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moskal JT, Danisa OA, Shaffrey CI (1997) Isolated revision acetabuloplasty using a porous coated cementles acetabular component without removal of a well fixed femoral component. J Arthroplasty 12: 719–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Phillips WC, Kattapuram SV (1982) Prosthetic hip replacements: plain films and arthrography for component loosening. AJR 138: 677–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phillips WC, Kattapuram SV (1983) Efficacy of preoperative hip aspiration performed in the radiology department. Clin Orthop 179: 141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Piriou P, Garrreau de Loubresse Ch, Wattincourt L, Judet T (1997) Valeur diagnostic de la ponction simple et de la biopsie truecut lors du bilan bactériologique pour infection ostéoarticulaire. Étude prospective sur 54 cas. Rev Chir Ortho 83 [Suppl. 2]: 20–21Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Theranzadeh J, Schneider R, Freiberger RH (1981) Radiological evaluation of painful hip replacement. Radiology 141: 355–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. de Thomasson
    • 1
  • C. Strauss
    • 2
  • O. Guingand
    • 1
  • R. Palau
    • 2
  • C. Mazel
    • 1
  1. 1.Département d'Orthopédie et de TraumatologieInstitut Mutualiste MontsourisParisFrance
  2. 2.Département d'Imagerie médicaleInstitut Mutualiste MontsourisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations