Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability of plain radiography, subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography, and bone scintigraphy in the assessment of aseptic femoral component loosening

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Plain radiography, subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography, and bone scintigraphy are imaging techniques commonly used to identify aseptic femoral component loosening. Controversy exists about the relative utility of these techniques. Patients and methods: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reliability of the four techniques in 78 consecutive patients (mean age 70 years, range 29–88 years) referred for evaluation of their femoral hip prostheses. The standard evaluation protocol consisted of plain radiography followed by subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography, and bone scintigraphy. Surgery or the subsequent clinical course of the patient was used as gold standard. Results: Overall, plain radiography had a sensitivity and specificity of 81 and 74%, respectively. Subtraction arthrography had a sensitivity of 47% and a specificity of 78%. Nuclear arthrography had a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 76%, and bone scintigraphy had a sensitivity of 88% with a specificity of 50%. Conclusion: We found considerable interobserver variability in all four techniques. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that bone scintigraphy and nuclear arthrography together made a significant contribution to the diagnosis when used in combination with plain radiography and are, when plain radiography is inconclusive, useful additional diagnostic techniques for the detection of femoral component loosening.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barentsz JO, Lemmens JM, Slooff TJ (1986) The use of subtraction arthrography in total hip arthroplasties. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed 144:440–446

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrack RL, Tanzer M, Kattapuram SV, Harris WH (1994) The value of contrast arthrography in assessing loosening of symptomatic uncemented total hip components. Skeletal Radiol 23:37–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brand RA, Yoder SA, Pedersen DR (1985) Interobserver variability in interpreting radiographic lucencies about total hip reconstructions. Clin Orthop 237–239

  4. Cain TM, Fon GT, Brumby S, Howie DW (1990) Plain film and arthrographic findings in painful total hip arthroplasties with surgical correlation. Australas Radiol 34:211–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheung A, Lachiewicz PF, Renner JB (1997) The role of aspiration and contrast-enhanced arthrography in evaluating the uncemented hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:1305–1309

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gelman MI, Coleman RE, Stevens PM, Davey BW (1978) Radiography, radionuclide imaging, and arthrography in the evaluation of total hip and knee replacement. Radiology 128:677–682

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ginai AZ, van Biezen FC, Kint PA, Oei HY, Hop WC (1996) Digital subtraction arthrography in preoperative evaluation of painful total hip arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol 25:357–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  9. Hendrix RW, Wixson RL, Rana NA, Rogers LF (1983) Arthrography after total hip arthroplasty: a modified technique used in the diagnosis of pain. Radiology 148:647–652

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Horoszowski H, Ganel A, Kamhin M, Zaltzman S, Farine I (1980) Sequential use of technetium 99m MDP and gallium 67 citrate imaging in the evaluation of painful total hip replacement. Br J Radiol 53:1169–1173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Koster G, Munz DL, Kohler HP (1993) Clinical value of combined contrast and radionuclide arthrography in suspected loosening of hip prostheses. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 112:247–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kramhoft M, Gehrchen PM, Bodtker S, Wagner A, Jensen F (1996) Inter- and intraobserver study of radiographic assessment of cemented total hip arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 11:272–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Li DJ, Miles KA, Wraight EP (1994) Bone scintigraphy of hip prostheses. Can analysis of patterns of abnormality improve accuracy? Clin Nucl Med 19:112–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lieberman JR, Huo MH, Schneider R, Salvati EA, Rodi S (1993) Evaluation of painful hip arthroplasties. Are technetium bone scans necessary? J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:475–478

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lyons CW, Berquist TH, Lyons JC, Rand JA, Brown ML (1985) Evaluation of radiographic findings in painful hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 239–251

  16. Miniaci A, Bailey WH, Bourne RB, McLaren AC, Rorabeck CH (1990) Analysis of radionuclide arthrograms, radiographic arthrograms, and sequential plain radiographs in the assessment of painful hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5:143–149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ore L, Hardoff R, Gips S, Tamir A, Epstein L (1996) Observer variation in the interpretation of bone scintigraphy. J Clin Epidemiol 49:67–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Oyen WJ, Lemmens JA, Claessens RA, van Horn JR, Slooff TJ, Corstens FH (1996) Nuclear arthrography: combined scintigraphic and radiographic procedure for diagnosis of total hip prosthesis loosening. J Nucl Med 37:62–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pfahler M, Schidlo C, Refior HJ (1998) Evaluation of imaging in loosening of hip arthroplasty in 326 consecutive cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 117:205–207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Resnik CS, Fratkin MJ, Cardea JA (1986) Arthroscintigraphic evaluation of the painful total hip prosthesis. Clin Nucl Med 11:242–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenthall L, Aldis AE (1985) Radiophosphate evaluation of loose hip prostheses. J Can Assoc Radiol 36:189–193

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Swan JS, Braunstein EM, Wellman HN, Capello W (1991) Contrast and nuclear arthrography in loosening of the uncemented hip prosthesis. Skeletal Radiol 20:15–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Tehranzadeh J, Schneider R, Freiberger RH (1981) Radiological evaluation of painful total hip replacement. Radiology 141:355–362

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Uri G, Wellman H, Capello W, Robb J, Greenman G (1984) Scintigraphic and X-ray arthrographic diagnosis of femoral prosthesis loosening: concise communication. J Nucl Med 25:661–663

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weiss PE, Mall JC, Hoffer PB, Murray WR, Rodrigo JJ, Genant HK (1979) 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate bone imaging in the evaluation of total hip prostheses. Radiology 133:727–729

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Williams F, McCall IW, Park WM, O’Connor BT, Morris V (1981) Gallium-67 scanning in the painful total hip replacement. Clin Radiol 32:431–439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Boelelaan 1117, 1007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Olivier P. P. Temmerman, Pieter G. H. M. Raijmakers, Rik Pijpers, Otto S. Hoekstra & Gerrit J. J. Teule

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, VU University Medical Centre, Boelelaan 1117, 1007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Olivier P. P. Temmerman & Ide C. Heyligers

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Boelelaan 1117, 1007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Johannes Berkhof & Otto S. Hoekstra

  4. Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Centre, Boelelaan 1117, 1007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Erik F. L. David & Marinus A. Molenaar

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands

    Ide C. Heyligers

Authors
  1. Olivier P. P. Temmerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pieter G. H. M. Raijmakers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Berkhof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erik F. L. David
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rik Pijpers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marinus A. Molenaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Otto S. Hoekstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerrit J. J. Teule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ide C. Heyligers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier P. P. Temmerman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Temmerman, O.P.P., Raijmakers, P.G.H.M., Berkhof, J. et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability of plain radiography, subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography, and bone scintigraphy in the assessment of aseptic femoral component loosening. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126, 316–323 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0120-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-006-0120-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation