Radiological Imaging Evaluation of the Failing Total Hip Replacement

Nida Mushtaq, Kendrick To, Chris Gooding, Wasim Khan, Nida Mushtaq, Kendrick To, Chris Gooding, Wasim Khan

Abstract

Total hip replacements (THR) have been performed in the UK from the 1960s and since then we have seen surgical techniques, the design of implants, and imaging modalities rapidly develop. This paper will aim to review the different complications and imaging appearance which help to evaluate each problem. As for all investigations for bone and joints, a radiograph is the first imaging to be performed for any patient with a THR and can detect a majority of complications. CT is relatively low-cost, simple to perform and easily available making it an excellent tool to supplement radiographs when trying to evaluate a hip prosthesis. Single photon emission computed tomography with CT (SPECT-CT) is an emerging modality which has shown to combine the sensitivity that bone scintigraphy offers with the high specificity of CT. SPECT imaging also has the advantage of showing the bone's metabolic activity and is less prone to metal artifact than Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MRI has evolved to become an important diagnostic tool for the evaluation of THR in the post-operative period. Optimized pulse sequences and metal artifact reduction techniques have made MRI a useful tool in diagnosis of soft tissue abnormalities and is particularly useful in identifying adverse local tissue reactions in metal on metal implants. CT and MRI are accurate in identifying the diagnosis of most causes of THR complications except infection. Research confirms that leukocyte-marrow scintigraphy is the modality of choice for accurately diagnosing prosthetic joint infection and reassures us of its superiority over other nuclear medicine imaging. However, due to the limited availability and increased costs when performing leukocyte-marrow scintigraphy, CT and SPECT-CT would be a more preferred option when suspecting prosthesis infection. Ultrasound (US) has a limited role in the assessment of most THR complications but can be useful to identify peri-prosthetic fluid collections and the presence of soft tissue sinus tracts. Being aware of the imaging modalities that are available to orthopedic surgeons, and discussing these challenging cases with specialist radiologists will enable optimal management of THR complications.

Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging; complications; computed tomography; hip replacement; imaging; nuclear medicine.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CT pelvis- minimally displaced left proximal femur peri-prosthetic fracture. Small round stimulant beads visible around the left side tracking down toward the left hip wound.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A,B) NM technetium and white cell scan—SPECT CT. On SPECT-CT, there is image degradation seen at the level of the hip joint, despite this, there is some fluid visible lateral to the hip joint which co-localizes to the intense focus of white cell uptake. This fluid appears to track from the hip joint into the deep subcutaneous tissue, representing bursitis, or soft-tissue abscess formation. A focus of uptake can also be seen at the skin surface at the level of the umbilicus, most likely related to recent surgery.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Metal Artifact Reduction MRI image. Reduction sequence is utilized here in assessment of prosthesis failure in the left side following THR. Some metal artifact remains. There is no significant joint effusion, soft tissue oedema or collection seen. Common findings following THR can be seen here, this includes fatty atrophy in the short external rotators and adductor brevis. (B) Metal artifact reduction MRI image. Here, reduction sequence is utilized in order to minimize aberrations from acting as noise in the assessment of the contralateral joint. There is moderate degenerative change in the superior aspect of the right hip with near complete loss of articular cartilage and bone marrow oedema consistent with osteoarthritis. There is no hip effusion or synovitis.
Figure 4
Figure 4
NM dual phase bone scan pelvis. Increased blood pooling lateral to proximal left femur. Increased uptake approximates to acetabular cup and greater trochanter. Suggests loosening of left sided acetabular component with infection involving the left greater trochanter.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(A,B) Ultrasound of left hip—Superficial collection at site of wound tracking down to deep hip joint surface. Extension to borders of skin markers.

References

    1. Vanrusselt J, Vansevenant M, Vanderschueren G, Vanhoenacker F. Postoperative radiograph of the hip arthroplasty: what the radiologist should know. Insights Imaging. (2015) 6:591–600. 10.1007/s13244-015-0438-5
    1. Awan O, Chen L, Resnik CS. Imaging evaluation of complications of hip arthroplasty: Review of current concepts and imaging findings. Canad Assoc Radiol J. (2013) 64:306–13. 10.1016/j.carj.2012.08.003
    1. National Joint Registry Public and Patient Guide: Hip Replacement Edition. (2017). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2018).
    1. NICE Total Hip Replacement and Resurfacing Arthroplasty for End-Stage Arthritis of the Hip. (2018). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2018).
    1. American College of Radiology (2015). ACR Appropriateness Criteria – Imaging After Total Hip Replacement. Available online: (accessed July 30, 2018).
    1. British Orthopedic Association Primary Total Hip Replacement: A Guide to Good Practice. (2012). Available online at: (accessed September 7, 2018).
    1. Blum A, Gondim-Teixeira P, Gabiache E, Roche O, Sirveaux F, Olivier P, et al. . Developments in imaging methods used in hip arthroplasty: a diagnostic algorithm. Diagnost Intervent Imaging. (2016) 97:735–47. 10.1016/j.diii.2016.07.001
    1. Mulhall KJ, Masterson E, Burke TE. Routine recovery room radiographs after total hip arthroplasty: ineffective for screening and unsuitable as baseline for longitudinal follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. (2004) 19:313–7. 10.1016/j.arth.2003.08.021
    1. DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (1976) 121:20–32. 10.1097/00003086-197611000-00003
    1. Hargunani R, Madani H, Khoo M, Fotiadou A, Pressney I, Calleja M, et al. . Imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty. Canad Assoc Radiol J. (2016) 67:345–55. 10.1016/j.carj.2015.11.003
    1. Pietrzak JRT, Donaldson MJ, Kayani B, Haddad FS. Painful total hip arthroplasty. Orthopaed Trauma. (2018) 32:38–44. 10.1016/j.mporth.2017.11.008
    1. Lohmann CH, Rampal S, Lohrengel M, Singh G. Imaging in peri-prosthetic assessment: an orthopaedic perspective. EFORT Open Rev. (2017) 2:117–25. 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160058
    1. Roth TD, Maertz NA, Parr JA, Buckwalter KA, Choplin RH. CT of the hip prosthesis: appearance of components, fixation, and complications. Radiographics. (2012) 32:1089–107. 10.1148/rg.324115183
    1. Blum A, Meyer JB, Raymond A, Louis M, Bakour O, Kechidi R, et al. . CT of hip prosthesis: new techniques and new paradigms. Diagnost Intervent Imaging. (2016) 97:725–33. 10.1016/j.diii.2016.07.002
    1. Robertson DD, Weiss PJ, Fishman EK, Magid D, Walker PS. Evaluation of CT techniques for reducing artifacts in the presence of metallic orthopedic implants. J Comput Assis Tomogr. (1988) 12:236–41. 10.1097/00004728-198803000-00012
    1. Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M, Kunimatsu A, Abe O. Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists. Radiographics. (2018) 38:450–61. 10.1148/rg.2018170102
    1. Morsbach F, Bickelhaupt S, Wanner GA, Krauss A, Schmidt B, Alkadhi H. Reduction of metal artifacts from hip prostheses on CT images of the pelvis: value of iterative reconstructions. Radiology. (2013) 268:237–44. 10.1148/radiol.13122089
    1. Andersson KM, Nowik P, Persliden J, Thunberg P, Norrman E. Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses—an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendors. Br J Radiol. (2015) 88:20140473. 10.1259/bjr.20140473
    1. Bolstad K, Falatabo S, Aadnevik D, Dalehaug I, Vetti N. Metal artifact reduction in CT, a phantom study: subjective and objective evaluation of four commercial metal artifact reduction algorithms when used on three different orthopedic metal implants. Acta Radiol. (2018) 59:1110–18. 10.1177/0284185117751278
    1. Yu L, Liu X, Leng S, Kofler JM, Ramirez-Giraldo JC, Qu M, et al. . Radiation dose reduction in computed tomography: techniques and future perspective. Imaging Med. (2009) 1:65–84. 10.2217/iim.09.5
    1. Yu L, Leng S, McCollough CH. Dual-energy CT–based monochromatic imaging. Am J Roentgenol. (2012) 199:9–15. 10.2214/AJR.12.9121
    1. Kasparek MF, Töpker M, Lazar M, Weber M, Kasparek M, Mang T, et al. . Dual-energy CT and ceramic or titanium prostheses material reduce CT artifacts and provide superior image quality of total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. (2018) 1:1–10. 10.1007/s00167-018-5001-8
    1. Tam HH, Bhaludin B, Rahman D, Weller A, Ejindu V, Parthipun A. SPECT-CT in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Radiol. (2014) 61:81–95. 10.1016/j.crad.2013.08.003
    1. Wyngaert WV. SPECT/CT in postoperative painful hip arthroplasty. Sem Nuclear Med. (2018) 48:425–38. 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.05.002
    1. Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG. MR imaging of hip arthoplasty implants. Radiograph. (2014) 34:106–32. 10.1148/rg.344140010
    1. Berkowitz JL, Potter HG. Advanced MRI techniques for the hip joint: focus on the postoperative hip. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2017) 209:534–43. 10.2214/AJR.16.17789
    1. Filli L, Jud L, Luechinger R, Nanz D, Andreiksek G, Runge VM, et al. Material-Dependent implant artifact reduction using SEMAC-VAT and MAVRIC. Investig Radiol. (2017) 52:381–7. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000351
    1. Ma Y, Zuo P, Nittka M, Cheng X, Shao H, Wang C. Comparisons of slice-encoding metal artifact correction and view-angle tilting magnetic resonance imaging and traditional digital radiography in evaluating chronic hip pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthoped Transl. (2018) 12:45–54. 10.1016/j.jot.2017.11.002
    1. Talbot BS, Weinberg EP. Free access MR imaging with metal-suppression sequences for evaluation of total joint arthroplasty. Radiographics. (2015) 36:209–25. 10.1148/rg.2016150075
    1. Ai T, Padua A, Goerner F, Nittka M, Gugala Z, Jadhav S, et al. . SEMAC-VAT and MSVAT-SPACE sequence strategies for metal artifact reduction in 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol. (2012) 47:267–76. 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318240a919
    1. Choi S-J, Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Stevens KJ, Gold GE. Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2015) 204:140–7. 10.2214/AJR.13.11785
    1. Kloth JK, Winterstein M, Akbar M, Meyer E, Paul D, Kauczor HU, et al. . Comparison of 3D turbo spin-echo SPACE sequences with conventional 2D MRI sequences to assess the shoulder joint. Eur J Radiol. (2014) 83:1843–9. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.06.011
    1. Palestro CJ. Nuclear medicine and the failed joint replacement: past, present, and future. World J Radiol. (2014) 6:446–58. 10.4329/wjr.v6.i7.446
    1. Palestro CJ, Love C, Marwin SE. Nuclear Medicine of the Painful Joint Replacement. (2006). Available online at: (accessed September 7, 2018).
    1. Love C, Palestro CJ. Radionuclide imaging of infection. J Nuclear Med Technol. (2004) 32:47–57.
    1. Palestro CJ, Love C, Bhargava KK. Labeled leukocyte imaging: current status and future directions. Q J Nuclear Med Mol Imaging. (2009) 53:105–23.
    1. Palestro CJ, Love C, Tronco GG, Tomas MB, Rini JN. Combined labeled leukocyte and technetium 99m sulfur colloid bone marrow imaging for diagnosing musculoskeletal infection. Radiographics. (2006) 26:859–70. 10.1148/rg.263055139
    1. Glaudemans AWJM, Galli F, Pacilio M, Signore A. Leukocyte and bacterial imaging in prosthetic bone infection. Eur Cells Imaging. (2013) 25:61–77. 10.22203/eCM.v025a05
    1. Ullmark G, Nilsson O, Maripuu E, Sörensen J. Analysis of bone mineralization on uncemented femoral stems by [18F]-fluoride-PET: a randomized clinical study of 16 hips in 8 patients. Acta Orthopaed. (2013) 84:138–44. 10.3109/17453674.2013.786632
    1. Love C, Marwin SE, Palestro CJ. Nuclear medicine and the infected joint replacement. Semin Nucl Med. (2009). 39:66–78. 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2008.08.007
    1. Kobayashi N, Inaba Y, Choe H, Fujimaki H, Tezuka T, Hirata Y, et al. . Use of F-18 fluoride PET to differentiate septic from aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty patients. Clin Nucl Med. (2011) 36:156–61. 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182291ae7
    1. Adesanya O, Sprowson A, Masters J, Hutchinson C. Review of the role of dynamic 18F-NaF PET in diagnosing and distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening in hip prosthesis. J Orthoped Surg Res. (2015) 10:5. 10.1186/s13018-014-0147-7
    1. Kobayashi N, Inaba T, Tezuka T, Hiroyuki I, Kubota S, Masaki K, et al. . Evaluation of local bone turnover in painful hip by 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography. Nuclear Med Commun. (2016) 37:399–405. 10.1097/MNM.0000000000000456
    1. Van der Vos CS, Arens AIJ, Hamill JJ, Hofmann C, Panin VY, Meeuwis APW, et al. Metal artifact reduction of CT scans to improve PET/CT. J Nuclear Med. (2017) 58:1867–72. 10.2967/jnumed.117.191171
    1. Sdao S, Orlandi D, Aliprandi A, Lacelli F, Sconfienza LM, Randelli F, et al. . The role of ultrasonography in the assessment of peri-prosthetic hip complications. J Ultrasound. (2015) 18:245–50. 10.1007/s40477-014-0107-4
    1. Francis K, Burd EM, Verner J, Silverton C, Eyler W, van Holsbeeck M. The painful hip arthroplasty: assessment by ultrasound imaging and guided aspiration. In: Conference Paper. Chicago, IL: Radiological Society of North America; (2005).
    1. Clohisy JC, Calvert G, Tull F, McDonald D, Maloney WJ. Reasons for revision hip surgery: a retrospective review. Clin Orthop. (2004) 429:188–92. 10.1097/01.blo.0000150126.73024.42
    1. Abu-Amer Y, Darwech I, Clohisy JC. Aseptic loosening of total joint replacements: mechanisms underlying osteolysis and potential therapies. Arth Res Ther. (2007) 9(Suppl. 1):S6. 10.1186/ar2170
    1. Dattani R. Femoral osteolysis following total hip replacement. Postgr Med J. (2007) 83:312–6. 10.1136/pgmj.2006.053215
    1. Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 2, revisions and complications. Am J Roentgenol. (2012) 199:570–80. 10.2214/AJR.12.8844
    1. Harris WH, Mc Gann WA. Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullar-plug cementing technique. Follow-up notes with a minimum five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg. (1986) 68:1064–6. 10.2106/00004623-198668070-00014
    1. Miller T. Imaging of hip arthroplasty. Eur J Radiol. (2012) 81:3802–12. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.03.103
    1. Rabin DN, Smith C, Kubicka RA, Rabin S, Ali A, Charters JR, et al. Problem prostheses: the radiological evaluation of total joint replacement. Radiographics. (1987) 7:1107–27. 10.1148/radiographics.7.6.3423324
    1. Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthopaed Related Res. (1990) 257:107–28. 10.1097/00003086-199008000-00022
    1. Manaster BJ. From the RSNA refresher course. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation. Radiographics. (1996) 16:645–60. 10.1148/radiographics.16.3.8897629
    1. Park YS, Shin WC, Lee SM, Kwak SH, Bae JY, Suh KT. The best method for evaluating anteversion of the acetabular component after total hip arthroplasty on plain radiographs. J Orthopaed Surg Res. (2018) 13:66. 10.1186/s13018-018-0767-4
    1. Ulrich SD, Seyler TM, Bennett D, Delanois RE, Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, et al. . Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision? Int Orthopaed. (2008) 32:597–604. 10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3
    1. Werner BC, Brown TE. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. World J Orthoped. (2012) 3:122–30. 10.5312/wjo.v3.i8.122
    1. Murray DW. The definition and measurement of acetabular orientation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. (1993) 75:228–32 10.1302/0301-620X.75B2.8444942
    1. Hamilton WG, McAuley JP. Evaluation of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. (2004) 53:87–92.
    1. Catherine C, Bourdon A. Imaging orthopedic implant infections. Diagnost Intervent Imaging. (2012) 93:547–57. 10.1016/j.diii.2012.03.004
    1. Steinbach LS, Schneider R, Goldman AB, Kazam E, Ranawat CS, Ghelman B. Bursae and abscess cavities communicating with the hip. Diagnosis using arthrography and CT. Radiology. (1985) 156:303–7. 10.1148/radiology.156.2.4011891
    1. Marshall RA, Weaver MJ, Sodickson A, Khurana B. Periprosthetic femoral fractures in the emergency department: what the orthopedic surgeon wants to know. Radiographics. (2017) 37:1202–17. 10.1148/rg.2017160127
    1. Griffiths EJ, Cash DJ, Kalra S, Hopgood PJ. Time to surgery and 30-day morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures Injury. (2013) 44:1949–52. 10.1016/j.injury.2013.03.008
    1. Schwarkopf R, Oni JK, Marwin SE. Total hip arthroplasty periprosthetic femoral fractures: a review of classification and current treatment. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. (2013) 71:68–78.
    1. Marsland D, Means SC. A review of periprosthetic femoral fractures associated with total hip arthroplasty. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. (2012) 3:107–120. 10.1177/2151458512462870
    1. Chalmers BP, Perry KI, Taunton MJ, Mabry TM, Abdel MP. Diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculosk Med. (2016) 9:67–74. 10.1007/s12178-016-9321-3
    1. Siddiqui IA, Sabah SA, Satchithananda K, Lim AK, Cro S, Henckel J, et al. . A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of MARS MRI and ultrasound of the painful metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaed. (2014) 85:375–82. 10.3109/17453674.2014.908345
    1. Board TN, Karva A, Board RE, Gambhir AK, Porter ML. The prophylaxis and treatment of heterotopic ossification following lower limb arthroplasty. J Bone Joint J. (2007) 89:434–40. 10.1302/0301-620X.89B4.18845
    1. Amar E, Sharfman ZT, Rath E. Heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy J Hip Preservat Surg. (2015) 2:355–63. 10.1093/jhps/hnv052

Source: PubMed

3
購読する