Literature DB >> 26895821

Is Ultrasound As Useful As Metal Artifact Reduction Sequence Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Longitudinal Surveillance of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty Patients?

Young-Min Kwon1, Dimitris Dimitriou1, Ming Han Lincoln Liow1, Tsung-Yuan Tsai1, Guoan Li1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend longitudinal monitoring of at-risk metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasty patients with cross-sectional imaging such as metal artifact reduction sequence (MARS) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound. During follow-up evaluations, the clinical focus is on the relative interval changes in symptoms, radiographs, laboratory tests, and cross-sectional imaging modalities. Although MRI has the capacity for the detection of adverse local soft tissue reactions (ALTRs), the potential disadvantages of MARS MRI include the obscuration of periprosthetic tissues by metal artifacts and the cost. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in comparison with MARS MRI in detecting ALTR in MoM patients during consecutive follow-up.
METHODS: Thirty-five MoM patients (42 hips) were recruited prospectively to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the ultrasound for detecting ALTR in relation to MARS MRI during 2 longitudinal follow-up scans. The agreement between ultrasound and MARS MRI in ALTR grade, size, and size change was calculated.
RESULTS: At the initial evaluation and at the subsequent follow-up, ultrasound had a sensitivity of 81% and 86% and a specificity of 92% and 88%, respectively. At the follow-up evaluations, ultrasound was able to detect the "change" in the lesions size with -0.3 cm(2) average bias from the MARS MRI with higher agreement (k = 0.85) with MARS MRI compared to the initial evaluation in detecting any "change" in ALTR size or grade.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound detected the interval change in the ALTR size and grade with higher accuracy and higher agreement with MARS MRI compared with the initial evaluation, suggesting ultrasound is a valid and useful.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  MARS MRI; bearings; metal-on-metal; soft tissue reaction; ultrasound

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26895821     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  5 in total

Review 1.  Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: risk factors for pseudotumours and clinical systematic evaluation.

Authors:  Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Ultrasound evaluations and guided procedures of the painful joint arthroplasty.

Authors:  Steven B Soliman; Jason J Davis; Stephanie J Muh; Saifuddin T Vohra; Ashish Patel; Marnix T van Holsbeeck
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 2.128

3.  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

4.  Adverse Tissue Reactions and Metal Ion Behavior After Small-Head Metasul Hip Arthroplasty: A Long-Term Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Tsunehito Ishida; Toshiyuki Tateiwa; Yasuhito Takahashi; Yohei Nishikawa; Takaaki Shishido; Toshinori Masaoka; Kengo Yamamoto
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 2.071

5.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.