Literature DB >> 26330582

Similar incidence of periprosthetic fluid collections after ceramic-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasties and metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasties: results of a screening metal artefact reduction sequence-MRI study.

P Bisseling1, B W K de Wit1, A M Hol1, M J van Gorp1, A van Kampen2, J L C van Susante1.   

Abstract

Patients from a randomised trial on resurfacing hip arthroplasty (RHA) (n = 36, 19 males; median age 57 years, 24 to 65) comparing a conventional 28 mm metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty (MoM THA) (n = 28, 17 males; median age 59 years, 37 to 65) and a matched control group of asymptomatic patients with a 32 mm ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) THA (n = 33, 18 males; median age 63 years, 38 to 71) were cross-sectionally screened with metal artefact reducing sequence-MRI (MARS-MRI) for pseudotumour formation at a median of 55 months (23 to 72) post-operatively. MRIs were scored by consensus according to three different classification systems for pseudotumour formation. Clinical scores were available for all patients and metal ion levels for MoM bearing patients. Periprosthetic lesions with a median volume of 16 mL (1.5 to 35.9) were diagnosed in six patients in the RHA group (17%), one in the MoM THA group (4%) and six in the CoP group (18%). The classification systems revealed no clear differences between the groups. Solid lesions (n = 3) were exclusively encountered in the RHA group. Two patients in the RHA group and one in the MoM THA group underwent a revision for pseudotumour formation. There was no statistically significant relationship between clinical scoring, metal ion levels and periprosthetic lesions in any of the groups. Periprosthetic fluid collections are seen on MARS-MRI after conventional CoP THA and RHA and may reflect a soft-tissue collection or effusion. Currently available MRI classification systems seem to score these collections as pseudotumours, causing an-overestimatation of the incidence of pseudotumours. ©2015 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ceramic-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty; MRI; Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty; Pseudotumor; Resurfacing hip arthroplasty; pseudotumour

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26330582     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B9.35247

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  8 in total

1.  Revision for taper corrosion at the head-neck junction: pearls and pitfalls.

Authors:  Brian J McGrory; Brigham R McKenney
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03

2.  Lessons learnt from early failure of a patient trial with a polymer-on-polymer resurfacing hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Job L C Van Susante; Nico Verdonschot; L Paul A Bom; Pawel Tomaszewski; Pat Campbell; Edward Ebramzadeh; B Wim Schreurs
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 3.717

3.  Current Pathologic Scoring Systems for Metal-on-metal THA Revisions are not Reproducible.

Authors:  Christiaan Smeekes; Arjen H G Cleven; Bart C H van der Wal; Stefan V Dubois; Remigio W Rouse; Bastiaan F Ongkiehong; Ron Wolterbeek; Rob G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Magnetic resonance imaging features for the differential diagnosis of local recurrence of bone sarcoma after prosthesis replacement.

Authors:  Le Qin; Qiyuan Bao; Jie Chen; Lianjun Du; Fuhua Yan; Yong Lu; Caixia Fu; Weibin Zhang; Yuhui Shen
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Reliability of slice-encoding for metal artefact correction (SEMAC) MRI to identify prosthesis loosening in patients with painful total hip arthroplasty - a single centre, prospective, surgical validation study.

Authors:  Tsuneari Takahashi; Siddharth Thaker; Giovanni Lettieri; Anthony Redmond; Michael R Backhouse; Martin Stone; Hemant Pandit; Philip O'Connor
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2022-02-11       Impact factor: 3.629

Review 6.  The contribution of the histopathological examination to the diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions in arthroplasty.

Authors:  Giorgio Perino; Ivan De Martino; Lingxin Zhang; Zhidao Xia; Jiri Gallo; Shonali Natu; David Langton; Monika Huber; Anastasia Rakow; Janosch Schoon; Enrique Gomez-Barrena; Veit Krenn
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-06-28

7.  What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Andrew Judge; Antti Eskelinen; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2017-11-06       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Pseudotumor in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty: a comparison study of three grading systems with MRI.

Authors:  C Smeekes; B J M Schouten; M Nix; B F Ongkiehong; R Wolterbeek; B C H van der Wal; R G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 2.199

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.