OBJECTIVES: Management of patients with osteonecrosis of the hip remains controversial and challenging. Because the prognosis and treatment are determined in large part by the stage and extent of the disease, it is important to use a reliable and efficient method for evaluation and staging. The objective of this study was to determine how musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists evaluate osteonecrosis and whether this evaluation is adequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-part questionnaire was designed to determine how MSK radiologists evaluate patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). This was sent to 888 members of the Society of Skeletal Radiology. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one members responded to essentially all questions. Patients were evaluated using plain radiographs and MRI. All agreed that it is clinically important to determine the extent of necrosis and joint involvement, and 115 (95 %) stated that this should be part of the radiologists' evaluation. However, only 55 (46 %) said that in practice they used a specific system of classification, and most of these used the Ficat and Arlet classification, which does not indicate the extent of involvement. One hundred and seven (88 %) respondents included a simple visual estimate of the extent of involvement, and a small number added a specific measurement of lesion size. The majority indicated that they were infrequently consulted about which imaging studies should be obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Although radiologists recognize the clinical importance of determining the extent of necrosis and joint involvement in patients with ONFH, in practice the methods used to evaluate these patients often do not accomplish this satisfactorily. The use of an effective classification, which includes both stage and extent of involvement, should be stressed, as it will lead to improved treatment of patients with ON. Physicians who order imaging studies for patients with ON should be encouraged to consult routinely with their radiology colleagues regarding which studies to request, as well as on the interpretation of these studies.
OBJECTIVES: Management of patients with osteonecrosis of the hip remains controversial and challenging. Because the prognosis and treatment are determined in large part by the stage and extent of the disease, it is important to use a reliable and efficient method for evaluation and staging. The objective of this study was to determine how musculoskeletal (MSK) radiologists evaluate osteonecrosis and whether this evaluation is adequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-part questionnaire was designed to determine how MSK radiologists evaluate patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). This was sent to 888 members of the Society of Skeletal Radiology. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one members responded to essentially all questions. Patients were evaluated using plain radiographs and MRI. All agreed that it is clinically important to determine the extent of necrosis and joint involvement, and 115 (95 %) stated that this should be part of the radiologists' evaluation. However, only 55 (46 %) said that in practice they used a specific system of classification, and most of these used the Ficat and Arlet classification, which does not indicate the extent of involvement. One hundred and seven (88 %) respondents included a simple visual estimate of the extent of involvement, and a small number added a specific measurement of lesion size. The majority indicated that they were infrequently consulted about which imaging studies should be obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Although radiologists recognize the clinical importance of determining the extent of necrosis and joint involvement in patients with ONFH, in practice the methods used to evaluate these patients often do not accomplish this satisfactorily. The use of an effective classification, which includes both stage and extent of involvement, should be stressed, as it will lead to improved treatment of patients with ON. Physicians who order imaging studies for patients with ON should be encouraged to consult routinely with their radiology colleagues regarding which studies to request, as well as on the interpretation of these studies.
Authors: David R Steinberg; Marvin E Steinberg; Jonathan P Garino; Murray Dalinka; Jayaram K Udupa Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michael A Mont; German A Marulanda; Lynne C Jones; Khaled J Saleh; Noah Gordon; David S Hungerford; Marvin E Steinberg Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Shobha Parajuli; John R Fowler; Easwaran Balasubramanian; William R Reinus; John P Gaughan; Daniel I Rosenthal; Jasvir S Khurana Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Michael Ian Jarman; Kevin Lee; Ariel Kanevsky; Sarah Min; Ilana Schlam; Chris Mahida; Ali Huda; Alexander Milgrom; Naila Goldenberg; Charles J Glueck; Ping Wang Journal: BMC Hematol Date: 2017-03-27