Literature DB >> 16056041

Comparison of CT, MRI, and radiographs in assessing pelvic osteolysis: a cadaveric study.

Tim A Walde1, Daniel E Weiland, Serena B Leung, Nobuto Kitamura, Christi J Sychterz, C Anderson Engh, Alexandra M Claus, Hollis G Potter, Charles A Engh.   

Abstract

In this study, we compared the accuracy of radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in assessing periacetabular osteolytic lesions. Using a previously published cadaver model, we created 87 lesions in pelves implanted with total hip replacement components. The sensitivity for detecting lesions was 51.7% for radiography, 74.7% for computed tomography, and 95.4% for magnetic resonance imaging. For all three techniques, sensitivity increased as lesion size increased. Magnetic resonance imaging emerged as the most effective tool for detecting small periacetabular osteolytic lesions (< or = 3 cm). For lesions larger than 3 cm, which are of more concern clinically, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were effective in identifying lesions with detection rates greater than 80%. For radiography and computed tomography, lesion detection was dependent on lesion location, whereas magnetic resonance imaging had consistently good sensitivity in all lesion locations. Although the mean volumetric errors for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (0.3 cm and 0.8 cm) were small compared with mean lesion volume (6.1 cm), computed tomography was more accurate than magnetic resonance imaging at measuring lesion volume, with a lower mean absolute error. This study verifies the problems associated with radiographic detection of osteolysis while showing the effectiveness of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in determining the presence of lesions and assessing their three-dimensional volume.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16056041     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000164028.14504.46

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  49 in total

1.  Voxel classification and graph cuts for automated segmentation of pathological periprosthetic hip anatomy.

Authors:  Daniel F Malan; Charl P Botha; Edward R Valstar
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  The incidence of acetabular osteolysis in young patients with conventional versus highly crosslinked polyethylene.

Authors:  Nathan A Mall; Ryan M Nunley; Jin Jun Zhu; William J Maloney; Robert L Barrack; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Periprosthetic osteolysis after total hip replacement: molecular pathology and clinical management.

Authors:  Donald W Howie; Susan D Neale; David R Haynes; Oksana T Holubowycz; Margaret A McGee; Lucian B Solomon; Stuart A Callary; Gerald J Atkins; David M Findlay
Journal:  Inflammopharmacology       Date:  2013-10-15       Impact factor: 4.473

Review 4.  Imaging near orthopedic hardware.

Authors:  Matthew F Koff; Alissa J Burge; Kevin M Koch; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  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

6.  Correlation of computed tomography with histology in the assessment of periprosthetic defect healing.

Authors:  Stephen D Cook; Laura P Patron; Samantha L Salkeld; Kirk E Smith; Bruce Whiting; Robert L Barrack
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Patric Kröpil; Roland Fenk; Lars B Fritz; Dirk Blondin; Guido Kobbe; Ulrich Mödder; Mathias Cohnen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-10-09       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  CORR Insights®: What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI for Component Loosening in THA?

Authors:  H John Cooper
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Acetabular defect classification in times of 3D imaging and patient-specific treatment protocols.

Authors:  K Horas; J Arnholdt; A F Steinert; M Hoberg; M Rudert; B M Holzapfel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Monitoring and risk of progression of osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michael D Ries; Thomas M Link
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 5.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.