Skip to main content
Log in

Postoperative Bildgebung des Hüftgelenks

Postoperative imaging of the hip

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Radiologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Klinisches Problem

Um die postoperative Bildgebung am Hüftgelenk hinsichtlich möglicher Komplikationen zu beurteilen, sind fundierte Kenntnisse über die unterschiedlichen Operationstechniken, die operativen Zugangswege sowie die verwendeten Fremdmaterialien unerlässlich.

Radiologische Standardverfahren

Während die unmittelbar postoperative Röntgenkontrolle der Beurteilung der korrekten Fremdmateriallage und Gelenkstellung sowie dem Ausschluss intraoperativ entstandener periprothetischer Frakturen dient, geben Verlaufsuntersuchungen Hinweise auf Materialversagen, aseptische Lockerungen, Protheseninfekte oder das Auftreten heterotoper Ossifikationen. Bei unklarem Röntgenbefund kommt die Computertomographie (CT) zur Anwendung, wohingegen die Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) zur Abklärung intra- und periartikulärer Weichteilpathologien wie operationsassoziierte Knorpel- und Bandschädigungen, Muskelinsuffizienzen und -abrissen oder Metallosen herangezogen wird.

Methodische Innovation und Bewertung

Mit dem Ziel, Handlungs- und Therapieempfehlungen ableiten zu können, stehen zur standardisierten Befundung häufiger postoperativer Komplikationen, wie beispielsweise periprothetischer Frakturen, Prothesenlockerungen oder der Einteilung heterotoper Ossifikationen, unterschiedliche Klassifikationssysteme zur Verfügung. Eine noch zu lösende Herausforderung für die Bildgebung bleibt die sichere Differenzierung aseptischer Materiallockerungen von septischen Protheseninfekten.

Empfehlung für die Praxis

Die Beurteilung der postoperativen Bildgebung der Hüfte sollte eng an die jeweilige Operationstechnik und das eingebrachte Fremdmaterial gekoppelt sein, woraus sich unterschiedliche Auftretenswahrscheinlichkeiten spezifischer Komplikationen ableiten lassen.

Abstract

Clinical issue

To assess postoperative imaging of the hip joint regarding possible complications, it is indispensable to have in-depth knowledge of commonly used surgical techniques, access routes, and the implanted materials.

Standard radiological methods

While radiography is used to evaluate the position of foreign material and to rule out periprosthetic fractures that have occurred intraoperatively, follow-up examinations might show signs of material failure, aseptic loosening, prosthesis infections, or the occurrence of heterotopic ossifications. If radiographic findings are ambiguous, computed tomography (CT) may be used to clarify findings, whereas magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is helpful to identify intra- and periarticular soft tissue pathologies such as surgery-associated cartilage and ligament damage, muscle insufficiency, or metallosis.

Methodological innovation and evaluation

To guide clinical decision making in common postoperative complications, various classification systems are available, e.g., for periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening, or heterotopic ossification. However, the differentiation between aseptic material loosening and septic endoprosthesis infection remains challenging if based on imaging alone.

Practical recommendations

The assessment of postoperative hip imaging should be closely linked to the respective surgical technique and the implanted foreign material, whereby different probabilities of specific complications can be derived.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9
Abb. 10

Literatur

  1. Smith-Petersen MN (1949) Approach to and exposure of the hip joint for mold arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 31A(1):40–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Goebel S, Steinert AF, Schillinger J et al (2012) Reduced postoperative pain in total hip arthroplasty after minimal-invasive anterior approach. Int Orthop 36(3):491–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lepri AC, Villano M, Matassi F, Carulli C, Innocenti M, Civinini R (2020) “Anterolateral” approach to the hip: a systematic review of the correct definition of terms. Hip Int 30(2):13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hardinge K (1982) The direct lateral approach to the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64(1):17–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Petis S, Howard JL, Lanting BL, Vasarhelyi EM (2015) Surgical approach in primary total hip arthroplasty: anatomy, technique and clinical outcomes. Can J Surg 58(2):128–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Awad ME, Farley BJ, Mostafa G, Saleh KJ (2021) Direct anterior approach has short-term functional benefit and higher resource requirements compared with the posterior approach in primary total hip arthroplasty : a meta-analysis of functional outcomes and cost. Bone Joint J 103(6):1078–1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peng L, Zeng Y, Wu Y, Zeng J, Liu Y, Shen B (2020) Clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty between direct anterior approach and posterior approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21(1):338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang Z, Hou JZ, Wu CH et al (2018) A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 13(1):229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crompton J, Osagie-Clouard L, Patel A (2020) Do hip precautions after posterior-approach total hip arthroplasty affect dislocation rates? A systematic review of 7 studies with 6,900 patients. Acta Orthop 91(6):687–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cassar-Gheiti AJ, McColgan R, Kelly M, Cassar-Gheiti TM, Kenny P, Murphy CG (2020) Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system. EFORT Open Rev 5(4):241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cross M, Bostrom M (2009) Cement mantle retention: filling the hole. Orthopedics. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20090728-16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Callaghan JJ, Albright JC, Goetz DD, Olejniczak JP, Johnston RC (2000) Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement. Minimum twenty-five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(4):487–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kiran M, Johnston LR, Sripada S, McLeod GG, Jariwala AC (2018) Cemented total hip replacement in patients under 55 years. Acta Orthop 89(2):152–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Matthias J, Bostrom MP, Lane JM (2021) A comparison of risks and benefits regarding hip arthroplasty fixation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 5(11):e21.00014

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Penenberg BL, Samagh SP, Rajaee SS, Woehnl A, Brien WW (2018) Digital radiography in total hip arthroplasty: technique and radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(3):226–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Manaster BJ (1996) From the RSNA refresher courses. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation. Radiographics 16(3):645–660

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pluot E, Davis ET, Revell M, Davies AM, James SL (2009) Hip arthroplasty. Part 2: normal and abnormal radiographic findings. Clin Radiol 64(10):961–971

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoskins W, Bingham R, Lorimer M, Hatton A, de Steiger RN (2020) Early rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty related to surgical approach: an analysis of 122,345 primary total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102(21):1874–1882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr., Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB (1990) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72(2):161–168

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA (2002) A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(5):649–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tsukamoto M, Ohnishi H, Mori T, Kawasaki M, Uchida S, Sakai A (2017) Fifteen-year comparison of wear and osteolysis analysis for cross-linked or conventional polyethylene in cementless total hip arthroplasty for hip dysplasia—a retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 32(1):161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lindahl H, Garellick G, Regner H, Herberts P, Malchau H (2006) Three hundred and twenty-one periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(6):1215–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Holzapfel BM, Prodinger PM, Hoberg M, Meffert R, Rudert M, Gradinger R (2010) Periprosthetic fractures after total hip arthroplasty : classification, diagnosis and therapy strategies. Orthopade 39(5):519–535

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP (2004) Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:80–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Winkler T, Trampuz A, Hardt S, Janz V, Kleber C, Perka C (2014) Periprosthetic infection after hip arthroplasty. Orthopade 43(1):70–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ahmed SS, Begum F, Kayani B, Haddad FS (2019) Risk factors, diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 16(12):1063–1070

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Anwer U, Yablon CM (2017) Imaging of osteomyelitis of the extremities. Semin Roentgenol 52(1):49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Park BN, Hong SJ, Yoon MA, Oh JK (2019) MRI diagnosis for post-traumatic osteomyelitis of extremities using conventional metal-artifact reducing protocols: revisited. Acad Radiol 26(11):e317–e23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55(8):1629–1632

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ude CC, Esdaille CJ, Ogueri KS et al (2021) The mechanism of metallosis after total hip arthroplasty. Regen Eng Transl Med 7(3):247–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cipriano CA, Issack PS, Beksac B, Della Valle AG, Sculco TP, Salvati EA (2008) Metallosis after metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 37(2):E18–25

    Google Scholar 

  34. Heffernan EJ, Alkubaidan FO, Nielsen TO, Munk PL (2008) The imaging appearances of metallosis. Skelet Radiol 37(1):59–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. van der Weegen W, Sijbesma T, Hoekstra HJ, Brakel K, Pilot P, Nelissen RG (2014) Treatment of pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing based on magnetic resonance imaging, metal ion levels and symptoms. J Arthroplasty 29(2):416–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Peters RM, Willemse P, Rijk PC, Hoogendoorn M, Zijlstra WP (2017) Fatal cobalt toxicity after a non-metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Case Rep Orthop 2017:9123684

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Armbruster.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Armbruster und A. Paulus geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

figure qr

Zusatzmaterial online – bitte QR-Code scannen

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Armbruster, M., Paulus, A. Postoperative Bildgebung des Hüftgelenks. Radiologie 62, 862–869 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-022-01050-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-022-01050-2

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation