CT Evaluation of Total Hip Arthroplasty Complication: Dissociation of Acetabular Component

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Buckwalter KA, Parr JA, Choplin RH, Capello WN (2006) Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 10(1):86–97

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Mahnken AH, Raupach R, Wildberger JE, Jung B, Heussen N, Flohr TG, Gunther RW, Schaller S (2003) A new algorithm for metal artifact reduction in computed tomography: in vitro and in vivo evaluation after total hip replacement. Invest Radiol 38(12):769–775

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Marx A, von Knoch M, Pfortner J, Wiese M, Saxler G (2006) Misinterpretation of cup anteversion in total hip anthroplasty using planar radiography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126(7):487-492

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T, Perlick L, Paetzel C, Grifka J (2006) Position of the acetabular cup: accuracy of radiographic calculation compared to CT-based measurement. Eur J Radiol 58(2):294–300

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Blendea S, Eckman K, Jaramaz B, Levison TJ, Digioia AM 3rd (2005) Measurements of acetabular cup position and pelvic spatial orientation after total hip arthroplasty using computed tomography/radiography matching. Comput Aided Surg 10(1):37–43

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wines AP, McNicol D (2006) Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(5):696–701

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP (2005) Use of three dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1):85–90

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Mueller LA, Kress A, Nowak T, Pfander D, Pitto RP, Forst R, Schmidt R (2006) Periacetabular bone changes after uncemented total hip arthroplasty evaluated by quantitative computed tomography. Acta Orthop 77(3):380–385

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schmidt R, Pitto RP, Kress A, Ehremann C, Nowak TE, Reulbach U, Forst R, Muller L (2005) Inter- and intraobserver assessment of periacetabular osteodensitometry after cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty using computed tomography. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(5):291–297

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Koyama T, Yoshikawa H (2006) Multidetector CT evaluation of bone substitutes remodeling after revision hip surgery. Clin Orthop 442:158–164

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Park JS, Ryu KN, Hong HP, Park YK, Chun YS, Yoo MC (2004) Focal osteolysis in total hip replacement: CT findings. Skeletal Radiol 33(11):632–640

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Dr. Geoffrey Westrich for providing much of the clinical information.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolyn M. Sofka MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bogner, E.A., Sofka, C.M. CT Evaluation of Total Hip Arthroplasty Complication: Dissociation of Acetabular Component. HSS Jrnl 3, 112–114 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-006-9026-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Acetabular Component
  • Periprosthetic Fracture
  • Calcium Phosphate Cement
  • Compute Tomographic Evaluation
  • Component Alignment