What Are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Imaging Modalities to Diagnose Wear-related Corrosion Problems?

BackgroundAdverse tissue reactions are known to occur after total hip arthroplasty using both conventional and metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings and after MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (SRA). A variety of imaging tools, including ultrasound (US), CT, and MRI, have been used to diagnose problems associated with wear after MoM hip arthroplasty and corrosion at the head-trunnion junction; however, the relative advantages and disadvantages of each remain a source of controversy.Questions/purposesThe purposes of this review were to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of (1) US; (2) CT; and (3) MRI as diagnostic tools in the assessment of wear-related corrosion problems after hip arthroplasty.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed through Medline, EMBASE, Scopus CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library without time restriction using search terms related to THA, SRA, US, CT, MRI, adverse tissue reactions, and corrosion. Inclusion criteria were Level I through IV studies in the English language, whereas expert opinions and case reports were excluded. The quality of included studies was judged by their level of evidence, method of intervention allocation, outcome assessments, and followup of patients. Four hundred ninety unique results were returned and 40 articles were reviewed.ResultsThe prevalence of adverse local tissue reactions in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients varies based on the method of evaluation (US, CT, MRI) and imaging protocols. US is accessible and relatively inexpensive, yet has not been used to report synovial thicknesses in the setting of wear-related corrosion. CT scans are highly sensitive and provide information regarding component positioning but are limited in providing enhanced soft tissue contrast and require ionizing radiation. MRI has shown promise in predicting both the presence and severity of adverse local tissue reactions but is more expensive.ConclusionsAll three imaging modalities have a role in the assessment of adverse local tissue reactions and tribocorrosion after total hip arthroplasty. Although US may serve as a screening technique for the detection of larger periprosthetic collections, only MRI has been shown to predict the severity of tissue destruction found at revision and correlate to the degree of tissue necrosis at histologic evaluation.

[1]  S. Kurtz,et al.  The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  P. Campbell,et al.  Autopsy analysis thirty years after metal-on-metal total hip replacement. A case report. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  J. Stoner,et al.  Incidence of pseudotumor and acute lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesion (ALVAL) reactions in metal-on-metal hip articulations: a meta-analysis. , 2013, Journal of Arthroplasty.

[4]  A. Toms,et al.  Silent soft tissue pathology is common with a modern metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty , 2011, Acta orthopaedica.

[5]  Edward Ebramzadeh,et al.  Histological Features of Pseudotumor-like Tissues From Metal-on-Metal Hips , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  A. Lombardi,et al.  Evidence-based understanding of management perils for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  H. Gill,et al.  "Asymptomatic" pseudotumors after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty: prevalence and metal ion study. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  B. Hargreaves,et al.  The John Charnley Award: Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI Versus Ultrasound for Detecting Pseudotumors in Asymptomatic Metal-on-Metal THA , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  A. Liddle,et al.  Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Matthew F Koff,et al.  MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniques. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  H. Potter,et al.  MRI Predicts ALVAL and Tissue Damage in Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  S. Donell,et al.  Serial magnetic resonance imaging of metal-on-metal total hip replacements. Follow-up of a cohort of 28 mm Ultima TPS THRs. , 2013, The bone & joint journal.

[13]  N. Arden,et al.  High failure rates with a large-diameter hybrid metal-on-metal total hip replacement: clinical, radiological and retrieval analysis. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  John M Pauly,et al.  Slice encoding for metal artifact correction with noise reduction , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[15]  F. Haddad,et al.  Metal-on-metal bearings: the evidence so far. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[16]  K. Koch,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging findings in symptomatic versus asymptomatic subjects following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  B. Masri,et al.  The Natural History of Inflammatory Pseudotumors in Asymptomatic Patients After Metal-on-metal Hip Arthroplasty , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  J. Henckel,et al.  The painful metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[19]  J. V. Dalen,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Heavy reading in heavy metal Unraveling the mystery of hip tissue in metal on metal total hip arthroplasty , 2017 .

[20]  B. Kollen,et al.  High incidence of pseudotumour formation after large-diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement: a prospective cohort study. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[21]  S. Odum,et al.  High Frequency of Adverse Local Tissue Reactions in Asymptomatic Patients With Metal-on-Metal THA , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  P. Unwin,et al.  Metal ion levels after metal-on-metal proximal femoral replacements: a 30-year follow-up. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[23]  R. Berger,et al.  Corrosion at the head-neck taper as a cause for adverse local tissue reactions after total hip arthroplasty. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[24]  H. Migaud,et al.  Cementless metal-on-metal versus ceramic-on-polyethylene hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years of age: a comparative study with twelve to fourteen-year follow-up. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  E. Chang,et al.  Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings? , 2012, Radiology.

[26]  B. Masri,et al.  Prevalence of pseudotumor in asymptomatic patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  M. Morlock,et al.  Periprosthetic tissue metal content but not serum metal content predicts the type of tissue response in failed small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. , 2013, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[28]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[29]  Walter van der Weegen,et al.  High Incidence of Pseudotumours after Hip Resurfacing Even in Low Risk Patients; Results from an Intensified MRI Screening Protocol , 2013, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[30]  H. Migaud,et al.  Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients thirty years of age or younger. , 2010, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  Hollis G. Potter,et al.  What Causes Unexplained Pain in Patients With Metal-on metal Hip Devices? A Retrieval, Histologic, and Imaging Analysis , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[32]  Weitian Chen,et al.  Imaging near metal with a MAVRIC‐SEMAC hybrid , 2011, Magnetic resonance in medicine.