Gary Tran1, Lafi S Khalil2, Allen Wrubel1, Chad L Klochko1, Jason J Davis2, Steven B Soliman3. 1. Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 2. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 3. Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. stevens@rad.hfh.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the type and frequency of incidental findings detected on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacements and their effect on the planned arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All preoperative CT examinations performed for a robotic-assisted knee or total hip arthroplasty were obtained. This resulted in 1432 examinations performed between September 2016 and February 2020 at our institution. These examinations were initially interpreted by 1 of 9 fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Using a diagnosis search, the examination reports were then reviewed to catalog all incidental findings and further classify as significant or non-significant findings. Demographic information was obtained. In those with significant findings, a chart review was performed to record the relevant workup, outcomes, and if the planned arthroplasty was affected. RESULTS: Incidental findings were diagnosed in 740 (51.7%) patients. Of those with incidental findings, 41 (5.5%) were considered significant. A significant finding was more likely to be detected in males (P = 0.007) and on the hip protocol CT (P = 0.014). In 8 patients, these diagnoses resulted in either delay or cancelation of the arthroplasty. A planned total hip arthroplasty was more likely to be altered as compared to a knee arthroplasty (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Incidental findings are commonly detected by radiologists on preoperative CT imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacement. Several were valuable findings and resulted in a delay or even cancelation of the planned arthroplasty after the detection of critical diagnoses, which if not identified may have resulted in devastating outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the type and frequency of incidental findings detected on preoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacements and their effect on the planned arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All preoperative CT examinations performed for a robotic-assisted knee or total hip arthroplasty were obtained. This resulted in 1432 examinations performed between September 2016 and February 2020 at our institution. These examinations were initially interpreted by 1 of 9 fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Using a diagnosis search, the examination reports were then reviewed to catalog all incidental findings and further classify as significant or non-significant findings. Demographic information was obtained. In those with significant findings, a chart review was performed to record the relevant workup, outcomes, and if the planned arthroplasty was affected. RESULTS: Incidental findings were diagnosed in 740 (51.7%) patients. Of those with incidental findings, 41 (5.5%) were considered significant. A significant finding was more likely to be detected in males (P = 0.007) and on the hip protocol CT (P = 0.014). In 8 patients, these diagnoses resulted in either delay or cancelation of the arthroplasty. A planned total hip arthroplasty was more likely to be altered as compared to a knee arthroplasty (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Incidental findings are commonly detected by radiologists on preoperative CT imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacement. Several were valuable findings and resulted in a delay or even cancelation of the planned arthroplasty after the detection of critical diagnoses, which if not identified may have resulted in devastating outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
CT imaging; Incidental findings; Joint replacement; Knee arthroplasty; Robotic assisted; Total hip arthroplasty
Authors: Hassan Farooq; Evan R Deckard; Mary Ziemba-Davis; Adam Madsen; R Michael Meneghini Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-06-06 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Christian P Delaunay; Sophie Putman; Benjamin Puliéro; Matthieu Bégin; Henri Migaud; François Bonnomet Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Jessica L H Phillips; Alexander J Rondon; Chris Vannello; Yale A Fillingham; Matthew S Austin; P Maxwell Courtney Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Edmund C Lau; Kevin L Ong; Edward M Adler; Frank R Kolisek; Michael T Manley Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: José M Quintana; Inmaculada Arostegui; Antonio Escobar; Jesus Azkarate; J Ignacio Goenaga; Iratxe Lafuente Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-07-28
Authors: Maaike G J Gademan; Stefanie N Hofstede; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Rob G H H Nelissen; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 2.362
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