Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19(01): 031-039
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1396765
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Total Hip Arthroplasty: MR Imaging of Complications Unrelated to Metal Wear

Alissa J. Burge
1   Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
2   Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York
3   Magnetic Resonance Imaging Laboratory, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 January 2015 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Hip arthroplasty is one of the most common and successful orthopedic procedures performed for the treatment of advanced osteoarthritis. Due to the high prevalence of these implants within the population, complications related to hip arthroplasty are commonly encountered by clinicians and radiologists alike. Knowledge of the diagnostic imaging options available for evaluation of these implants, as well as of the expected range of normal and pathologic findings following hip arthroplasty, is crucial in allowing the radiologist to formulate an appropriate imaging strategy and accurately interpret the subsequent imaging findings.

Keywords

hip - arthroplasty - complications
 

  • References

  • 1 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). HCUPnet. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Available at: http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/ . Accessed on December 22, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012; 380 (9855) 1768-1777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kazi HA, Perera JR, Gillott E, Carroll FA, Briggs TW. A prospective study of a ceramic-on-metal bearing in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical results, metal ion levels and chromosome analysis at two years. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (8) 1040-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 2, revisions and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (3) 570-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rajpura A, Kendoff D, Board TN. The current state of bearing surfaces in total hip replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (2) 147-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 1, features and radiographic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (3) 559-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Russell RD, Estrera KA, Pivec R, Mont MA, Huo MH. What's new in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (18) 1719-1725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Walde TA, Weiland DE, Leung SB , et al. Comparison of CT, MRI, and radiographs in assessing pelvic osteolysis: a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; (437) 138-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (3) 547-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hayter CL, Koff MF, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35 (5) 1013-1025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hayter CL, Koff MF, Shah P, Koch KM, Miller TT, Potter HG. MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (3) W405-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chen CA, Chen W, Goodman SB , et al. New MR imaging methods for metallic implants in the knee: artifact correction and clinical impact. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33 (5) 1121-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Koch KM, Hargreaves BA, Pauly KB, Chen W, Gold GE, King KF. Magnetic resonance imaging near metal implants. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 32 (4) 773-787
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Beck RT, Illingworth KD, Saleh KJ. Review of periprosthetic osteolysis in total joint arthroplasty: an emphasis on host factors and future directions. J Orthop Res 2012; 30 (4) 541-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Purdue PE, Koulouvaris P, Nestor BJ, Sculco TP. The central role of wear debris in periprosthetic osteolysis. HSS J 2006; 2 (2) 102-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ren K, Purdue PE, Burton L , et al. Early detection and treatment of wear particle-induced inflammation and bone loss in a mouse calvarial osteolysis model using HPMA copolymer conjugates. Mol Pharm 2011; 8 (4) 1043-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Plodkowski AJ, Hayter CL, Miller TT, Nguyen JT, Potter HG. Lamellated hyperintense synovitis: potential MR imaging sign of an infected knee arthroplasty. Radiology 2013; 266 (1) 256-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lima AL, Oliveira PR, Carvalho VC, Saconi ES, Cabrita HB, Rodrigues MB. Periprosthetic joint infections. Interdiscip Perspect Infect Dis 2013; 2013: 542796
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Potter HG, Foo LF. Magnetic resonance imaging of joint arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2006; 37 (3) 361-373 , vi–vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (2) 217-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Michaely HJ, Attenberger UI, Kramer H, Nael K, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Abdominal and pelvic MR angiography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007; 15 (3) 301-314 , v–vi
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rubel IF, Potter H, Barie P, Kloen P, Helfet DL. Magnetic resonance venography to evaluate deep venous thrombosis in patients with pelvic and acetabular trauma. J Trauma 2001; 51 (3) 622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar