Literature DB >> 16022981

Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis: a cadaveric study.

Daniel E Weiland1, Tim A Walde, Serena B Leung, Christi J Sychterz, Stephanie Ho, Charles A Engh, Hollis G Potter.   

Abstract

Periprosthetic osteolysis is a well recognized complication of total hip arthroplasty that leads to implant failure. The ability to accurately assess and visualize the position and volume of periacetabular bone defects is paramount for clinical observation and medical treatment, as well as pre-operative planning of revision surgery. We have developed a modified magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol that is useful in detection and quantification of periacetabular bone loss. The purpose of this study is to compare MRI to plain film analysis in the assessment of periacetabular bone loss using a cadaver model. MRI was 95% sensitive in the detection of lesions. Specificity was 98%, and accuracy was 96%. Lesion detection was not statistically dependent on lesion location (p=0.27). The mean absolute error in determining lesion size was 0.8+/-2.2 cm3. There was a correlation between increasing lesion size and lesion detection (p=0.02, logistic regression). The largest lesion that was missed by MRI analysis measured 2.8 cm3, and all lesions 3.0 cm3 were correctly identified, with a relative error volume measurement of 12.4+/-25.3%. This correlated to an absolute error of 1.4+/-2.4 cm3. Using conventional radiographic analysis, the overall sensitivity of lesion detection was 52%, and the specificity was 96%. Using plain film analysis, identification of true lesions depended on the location with 83% of ilial lesions, 64% of pubic lesions, 55% of ischial lesions, and 0% of posterior wall lesions correctly identified. The modified MRI technique utilized did allow for accurate visualization of simulated osteolytic lesions, and may provide a suitable noninvasive method to provide serial assessment of clinical periacetabular osteolysis without the use of ionizing radiation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16022981     DOI: 10.1016/j.orthres.2005.02.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  18 in total

1.  What is the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Hollis G Potter; Li F Foo; Bryan J Nestor
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2005-09

2.  Measuring femoral lesions despite CT metal artefacts: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Daniel F Malan; Charl P Botha; Gert Kraaij; Raoul M S Joemai; Huub J L van der Heide; Rob G H H Nelissen; Edward R Valstar
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  MR Imaging of Knee Arthroplasty Implants.

Authors:  Jan Fritz; Brett Lurie; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 5.333

4.  How Useful Is Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Evaluating Adverse Local Tissue Reaction?

Authors:  Douglas E Padgett; Edwin P Su; Timothy M Wright; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Soo-Jung Choi; Kevin M Koch; Brian A Hargreaves; Kathryn J Stevens; Garry E Gold
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Current applications of advanced cross-sectional imaging techniques in evaluating the painful arthroplasty.

Authors:  Carolyn M Sofka
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Early reactive synovitis and osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  H John Cooper; Amar S Ranawat; Hollis G Potter; Li Foong Foo; Trevor W Koob; Chitranjan S Ranawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  In vitro assessment of knee MRI in the presence of metal implants comparing MAVRIC-SL and conventional fast spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T field strength.

Authors:  Hans Liebl; Ursula Heilmeier; Sonia Lee; Lorenzo Nardo; Janina Patsch; Christopher Schuppert; Misung Han; Ina-Christine Rondak; Suchandrima Banerjee; Kevin Koch; Thomas M Link; Roland Krug
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 9.  Clinical magnetic resonance imaging of arthroplasty at 1.5 T.

Authors:  Matthew F Koff; Alissa J Burge; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 3.494

10.  Musculoskeletal imaging update: current applications of advanced imaging techniques to evaluate the early and long-term complications of patients with orthopedic implants.

Authors:  Carolyn M Sofka; Hollis G Potter; Ronald S Adler; Helene Pavlov
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2006-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.