Literature DB >> 26741659

The utility of repeat ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients.

G S Matharu1, S Janardhan1, L Brash1, P B Pynsent1, D J Dunlop1, S L J James1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We assessed changes in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) after repeat ultrasound examination.
METHODS: This retrospective, single-centre cohort study involved all patients undergoing two ultrasound examinations of the same MoMHA. Between 2010 and 2014, 96 ultrasound examinations were performed in 48 MoMHAs (mean time between scans = 1.1 years). A radiologist assigned each scan to one of four grades and measured volumes of any solid/cystic masses. Changes in grade and lesion volume between scans were analysed.
RESULTS: Change in grade between scans was significant (p=0.012); 27% (n=13) of MoMHAs increased in grade, 67% (n=32) had no grade change, and 6% (n=3) decreased in grade. The mean increase in lesion volume was 24.2cm(3) by the second scan, and was significant (p=0.023). Evidence of progression in findings was observed in 54% (26/48) of MoMHAs. Of patients with normal scans initially, 44% (8/18) developed abnormalities. No factors (including blood metal ion concentrations and cup position) were associated significantly with progression of ultrasound findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Repeat ultrasound in MoMHA patients demonstrated that findings frequently progress in the short-term. Therefore, regular surveillance of MoMHA patients is important, with ultrasound representing an effective investigation for identifying the development and progression of lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adverse reaction to metal debris; follow-up; hip arthroplasty; metal-on-metal; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26741659      PMCID: PMC5210490          DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  22 in total

1.  Ultrasound screening of periarticular soft tissue abnormality around metal-on-metal bearings.

Authors:  Takashi Nishii; Takashi Sakai; Masaki Takao; Hideki Yoshikawa; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  The Oxford hip and knee outcome questionnaires for arthroplasty.

Authors:  P B Pynsent; D J Adams; S P Disney
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-02

3.  Hip resurfacings revised for inflammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome.

Authors:  G Grammatopoulos; G Grammatopolous; H Pandit; Y-M Kwon; R Gundle; P McLardy-Smith; D J Beard; D W Murray; H S Gill
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-08

4.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr; D Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1996-03

Review 5.  The role of ultrasound in the assessment of post-operative complications following hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  H Douis; D J Dunlop; A M Pearson; J N O'Hara; S L J James
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Is ultrasound screening reliable for adverse local tissue reaction after hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Takashi Nishii; Takashi Sakai; Masaki Takao; Hideki Yoshikawa; Nobuhiko Sugano
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging of pseudotumors following metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Masahiro Hasegawa; Noriki Miyamoto; Shinichi Miyazaki; Hiroki Wakabayashi; Akihiro Sudo
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.

Authors:  H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-07

9.  Revision of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in a tertiary center: a prospective study of 39 hips with between 1 and 4 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Alexander D Liddle; Keshtra Satchithananda; Johann Henckel; Shiraz A Sabah; Karuniyan V Vipulendran; Angus Lewis; John A Skinner; Adam W M Mitchell; Alister J Hart
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-04-28       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of MARS MRI and ultrasound of the painful metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Imran A Siddiqui; Shiraz A Sabah; Keshthra Satchithananda; Adrian K Lim; Suzie Cro; Johann Henckel; John A Skinner; Alister J Hart
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  5 in total

1.  How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

Authors:  Rajpal S Nandra; Usman Ahmed; Fiona Berryman; Lesley Brash; David J Dunlop; Gulraj S Matharu
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 1.756

2.  Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Antti Eskelinen; Andrew Judge; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.717

3.  Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both?

Authors:  G S Matharu; R Mansour; O Dada; S Ostlere; H G Pandit; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  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

5.  Usefulness of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of hematoma after primary hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jerzy Białecki; Paweł Bartosz; Wojciech Marczyński; Jan Zając
Journal:  J Ultrason       Date:  2017-09-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.