Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2019; 23(02): 162-176
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1677467
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Imaging of Hip Arthroplasties: Normal Findings and Hardware Complications

Swati Deshmukh
1   Department of Radiology, Northwestern University/Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois
,
Imran M. Omar
1   Department of Radiology, Northwestern University/Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 March 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Hip arthroplasty is a common and largely successful surgical procedure, often used for the treatment of advanced osteoarthritis. Imaging plays a key role in routine postoperative imaging surveillance as well as the evaluation of post-arthroplasty pain. Radiographs are the first-line imaging modality and may be followed by computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Recent advancements in imaging techniques allow for metal artifact reduction on CT and MRI. A variety of complications can arise in the setting of arthroplasty: mechanical loosening, component wear-induced synovitis and osteolysis, adverse local tissue reaction, infection, periprosthetic fracture, implant dislocation and/or component displacement, tendinopathy, and neurovascular injury. This article reviews normal and abnormal imaging findings of hip arthroplasty.

Keywords

arthroplasty - hip - imaging - radiographs - magnetic resonance imaging
 

  • References

  • 1 Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012; 380 (9855): 1768-1777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mancuso CA, Salvati EA, Johanson NA, Peterson MG, Charlson ME. Patients' expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12 (04) 387-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 1, features and radiographic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (03) 559-569
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chang CY, Huang AJ, Palmer WE. Radiographic evaluation of hip implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19 (01) 12-20
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT. Imaging of hip arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2013; 17 (03) 316-327
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Khodarahmi I, Fritz J. Advanced MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty: the clinical impact. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017; 21 (05) 616-629
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG. MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants. Radiographics 2014; 34 (04) E106-E132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 2, revisions and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (03) 570-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Li M, Glassman AH. What's new in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (18) 1616-1624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Burge AJ. Total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging of complications unrelated to metal wear. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19 (01) 31-39
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Berkowitz JL, Potter HG. Advanced MRI techniques for the hip joint: focus on the postoperative hip. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209 (03) 534-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pluot E, Davis ET, Revell M, Davies AM, James SL. Hip arthroplasty. Part 1: prosthesis terminology and classification. Clin Radiol 2009; 64 (10) 954-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rajpura A, Kendoff D, Board TN. The current state of bearing surfaces in total hip replacement. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (02) 147-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Douis H, Dunlop DJ, Pearson AM, O'Hara JN, James SL. The role of ultrasound in the assessment of post-operative complications following hip arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol 2012; 41 (09) 1035-1046
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Talia AJ, Coetzee C, Tirosh O, Tran P. Comparison of outcome measures and complication rates following three different approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Trials 2018; 19 (01) 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Walde TA, Weiland DE, Leung SB. , et al. Comparison of CT, MRI, and radiographs in assessing pelvic osteolysis: a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; (437) 138-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Subhas N, Polster JM, Obuchowski NA. , et al. Imaging of arthroplasties: improved image quality and lesion detection with iterative metal artifact reduction, a new CT metal artifact reduction technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 207 (02) 378-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Subhas N, Primak AN, Obuchowski NA. , et al. Iterative metal artifact reduction: evaluation and optimization of technique. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43 (12) 1729-1735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bolstad K, Flatabø S, Aadnevik D, Dalehaug I, Vetti N. Metal artifact reduction in CT, a phantom study: subjective and objective evaluation of four commercial metal artifact reduction algorithms when used on three different orthopedic metal implants. Acta Radiol 2018; 59 (09) 1110-1118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Katsura M, Sato J, Akahane M, Kunimatsu A, Abe O. Current and novel techniques for metal artifact reduction at CT: practical guide for radiologists. Radiographics 2018; 38 (02) 450-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wellenberg RHH, Hakvoort ET, Slump CH, Boomsma MF, Maas M, Streekstra GJ. Metal artifact reduction techniques in musculoskeletal CT-imaging. Eur J Radiol 2018; 107: 60-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Khodarahmi I, Nittka M, Fritz J. Leaps in technology: advanced MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017; 21 (05) 604-615
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hargreaves BA, Worters PW, Pauly KB, Pauly JM, Koch KM, Gold GE. Metal-induced artifacts in MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (03) 547-555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hayter CL, Koff MF, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35 (05) 1013-1025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hayter CL, Koff MF, Shah P, Koch KM, Miller TT, Potter HG. MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197 (03) W405-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fritz J, Fritz B, Thawait GK. , et al. Advanced metal artifact reduction MRI of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty implants: compressed sensing acceleration enables the time-neutral use of SEMAC. Skeletal Radiol 2016; 45 (10) 1345-1356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pluot E, Davis ET, Revell M, Davies AM, James SL. Hip arthroplasty. Part 2: normal and abnormal radiographic findings. Clin Radiol 2009; 64 (10) 961-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976; (121) 20-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1979; (141) 17-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Beck RT, Illingworth KD, Saleh KJ. Review of periprosthetic osteolysis in total joint arthroplasty: an emphasis on host factors and future directions. J Orthop Res 2012; 30 (04) 541-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Huber M, Reinisch G, Trettenhahn G, Zweymüller K, Lintner F. Presence of corrosion products and hypersensitivity-associated reactions in periprosthetic tissue after aseptic loosening of total hip replacements with metal bearing surfaces. Acta Biomater 2009; 5 (01) 172-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Campbell P, Ebramzadeh E, Nelson S, Takamura K, De Smet K, Amstutz HC. Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (09) 2321-2327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A. , et al. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (01) 28-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (01) 18-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nawabi DH, Gold S, Lyman S, Fields K, Padgett DE, Potter HG. MRI predicts ALVAL and tissue damage in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (02) 471-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Plodkowski AJ, Hayter CL, Miller TT, Nguyen JT, Potter HG. Lamellated hyperintense synovitis: potential MR imaging sign of an infected knee arthroplasty. Radiology 2013; 266 (01) 256-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Marshall RA, Weaver MJ, Sodickson A, Khurana B. Periprosthetic femoral fractures in the emergency department: what the orthopedic surgeon wants to know. Radiographics 2017; 37 (04) 1202-1217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hedbeck CJ, Blomfeldt R, Lapidus G, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S, Tidermark J. Unipolar hemiarthroplasty versus bipolar hemiarthroplasty in the most elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures: a randomised, controlled trial. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (11) 1703-1711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Shetty T, Nguyen JT, Wu A. , et al. Risk factors for nerve injury after total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (01) 151-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 White PB, Ramkumar PN, Meftah M, Ghazi N, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Incidence of heterotopic ossification following a multimodal pain protocol in total hip arthroplasty with the posterior approach. Orthopedics 2018; 41 (01) e92-e97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hoskins W, van Bavel D, Lorimer M, de Steiger RN. Polished cemented femoral stems have a lower rate of revision than matt finished cemented stems in total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 96,315 cemented femoral stems. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (05) 1472-1476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Colas S, Allalou A, Poichotte A, Piriou P, Dray-Spira R, Zureik M. Exchangeable femoral neck (dual-modular) THA prostheses have poorer survivorship than other designs: a nationwide cohort of 324,108 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (08) 2046-2059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Howard DP, Wall PDH, Fernandez MA, Parsons H, Howard PW. Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing fractures in total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of data from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (08) 1012-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Devane PA, Horne JG, Ashmore A, Mutimer J, Kim W, Stanley J. Highly crosslinked polyethylene reduces wear and revision rates in total hip arthroplasty: a 10- year double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (20) 1703-1714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Atrey A, Ward SE, Khoshbin A. , et al. Ten-year follow-up study of three alternative bearing surfaces used in total hip arthroplasty in young patients: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (12) 1590-1595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Carlson BC, Bryan AJ, Carrillo-Villamizar NT, Sierra RJ. The utility of metal ion trends in predicting revision in metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (9S): S214-S219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Matharu GS, Berryman F, Judge A. , et al. Blood metal ion thresholds to identify patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at risk of adverse reactions to metal debris: an external multicenter validation study of Birmingham hip resurfacing and Corail-Pinnacle implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (18) 1532-1539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Reiner T, Do TD, Klotz MC. , et al. MRI findings in patients after small-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (18) 1540-1546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Plummer DR, Berger RA, Paprosky WG, Sporer SM, Jacobs JJ, Della Valle CJ. Diagnosis and management of adverse local tissue reactions secondary to corrosion at the head-neck junction in patients with metal on polyethylene bearings. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (01) 264-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Fillingham YA, Della Valle CJ, Bohl DD. , et al. Serum metal levels for diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions secondary to corrosion in metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (9S): S272-S277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Huang P, Lyons M, O'Sullivan M. The infection rate of metal-on-metal total hip replacement is higher when compared to other bearing surfaces as documented by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. HSS J 2018; 14 (01) 99-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Edelstein AI, Lovecchio F, Delagrammaticas DE, Fitz DW, Hardt KD, Manning DW. The impact of metabolic syndrome on 30-day complications following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (02) 362-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Yakubek GA, Curtis GL, Sodhi N. , et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with short-term complications following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (06) 1926-1929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Newman JM, Naziri Q, Chughtai M. , et al. Does multiple sclerosis affect the inpatient perioperative outcomes after total hip arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (12) 3669-3674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Newman JM, Sodhi N, Dalton SE. , et al. Does Parkinson disease increase the risk of perioperative complications after total hip arthroplasty? A nationwide database study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S162-S166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Goodnough LH, Finlay AK, Huddleston III JI, Goodman SB, Maloney WJ, Amanatullah DF. Obesity is independently associated with early aseptic loosening in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (03) 882-886
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Purcell RL, Parks NL, Cody JP, Hamilton WG. Comparison of wound complications and deep infections with direct anterior and posterior approaches in obese hip arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 220-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Sahota S, Lovecchio F, Harold RE, Beal MD, Manning DW. The effect of smoking on thirty-day postoperative complications after total joint arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar