Promising results of an non-invasive measurement of knee implant loosening using a loading device, CT-scans and 3D image analysis

An evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the triphasic bone scintigraphy in patients suspected of aseptic total knee arthroplasty loosening

Background

Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is a widely conducted and successful orthopedic procedure. However, aseptic loosening, a common cause of TKA failure, necessitates revision surgery. Diagnostic accuracy of triphasic bone scintigraphy, a common imaging modality for aseptic loosening detection, remains controversial. This study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of bone scintigraphy when separately evaluated by a nuclear physicist and an orthopedic surgeon, and the interrater reliability between the two.

Methods

Patients undergoing knee revision surgery due to suspected aseptic loosening at three medical centers from 2006 to 2023 were included. Relevant demographic, clinical, and procedural data were extracted from the records. The bone scintigraphy results as noted by the nuclear physicist and orthopedic surgeon were used as index test and intraoperative findings of loosening were used as reference tests. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated, and kappa's agreement was assessed.

Results

Out of 611 revision TKAs, 59 cases were analyzed. The nuclear physicist's evaluation of bone scintigraphy had a sensitivity of 73 %, specificity of 0 %, positive predictive value of 93 %, negative predictive value of 0 %, and diagnostic accuracy of 69 %. The orthopedic surgeon's evaluation showed higher sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and an accuracy of 84 %. Agreement levels were moderate (kappa = 0.46) between the nuclear physicist's and orthopedic surgeons evaluation.

Interpretation

The diagnostic accuracy of bone scintigraphy for aseptic loosening is 84 % when evaluated by the orthopedic surgeon compared to 69 % for the nuclear physicist's evaluation. Kappa's agreement between the two was moderate.

MRI and SPECT/CT demonstrate, with low certainty of evidence, the highest diagnostic accuracy for aseptic knee arthroplasty loosening: A systematic comparative diagnostic test review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of modalities used to aid the diagnosis of aseptic knee arthroplasty loosening.

METHODS

A comparative diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Cochrane and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for original articles evaluating diagnostic modalities up to March 2024. Included studies compared the modality (index test) to the intraoperative finding as reference test. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Level of evidence was evaluated using the Oxford Levels of Evidence tool. The primary outcome was the summary of diagnostic accuracy metrics for each modality as demonstrated by a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve.

RESULTS

The search yielded 467 articles. Of these, 14 articles were included. These 14 articles evaluated a total of five different diagnostic modalities: bone scintigraphy (three studies, 146 cases), 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (two studies, 50 cases), single-photon emission computed tomography combined with computed tomography (SPECT/CT) (seven studies, 371 cases), radionuclide arthrogram (three studies, 196 cases) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (one study, 116 cases). Nine studies exhibited a high risk of bias in patient selection, and all studies showed a high risk of bias related to the reference test. The majority of the included studies were classified as Level III evidence, leading to an overall low level of certainty in the evidence. The most accurate tests, as demonstrated by the SROC analysis, were MRI and SPECT/CT, with sensitivities ranging from 0.00 to 1.00 and 0.33 to 1.00 and specificities between 0.31-1.00 and 0.00-1.00, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review and meta-analysis evaluated available diagnostic modalities to aid the diagnosis of knee arthroplasty loosening and based on a low certainty of evidence suggests that MRI and SPECT/CT are currently the most accurate modalities available to aid the diagnosis of aseptic loosening of knee arthroplasty components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Visible fluid motion on manipulation as the new threshold for intraoperatively determined knee arthroplasty component loosening: A Delphi study

PURPOSE

There is a lack of a clear, uniform definition for intraoperatively assessed component loosening of a knee arthroplasty component, complicating the interpretation and interchangeability of results of diagnostic studies using an intraoperative observation as the reference test. The purpose of this study was to establish a consensus among specialised knee revision surgeons regarding the definition of intraoperatively determined loosening of total or unicondylar knee arthroplasty components.

METHODS

Utilising the Delphi consensus method, an international panel of highly specialised knee revision surgeons was invited to participate in a three-round process. The initiation of the first round involved the exploration of possible criteria for intraoperatively determined loosening with open questions. The second round focused on rating these criteria importance on a five-point Likert scale. For the third round, criteria that reached consensus were summarised in consecutive definitions for intraoperatively determined loosening and proposed to the panel. Consensus was established when over 70% of participants agreed with a definition for intraoperatively determined loosening.

RESULTS

The 34 responding panel members described in total 60 different criteria in the first round of which 34 criteria received consensus in the second round. Summarising these criteria resulted in four different definitions as minimal requirements for intraoperatively determined loosening. Eighty-eight percent of the panel members agreed on defining a component as loose if there is visible fluid motion at the interface observed during specific movements or when gently applying direct force.

CONCLUSION

This study successfully established a consensus using a Delphi method among knee revision surgeons on the definition of intraoperatively determined component loosening. By agreeing on the visibility of fluid motion as new definition, this study provides a standardised reference for future diagnostic research. This definition will enhance the interpretability and interchangeability of future diagnostic studies evaluating knee arthroplasty component loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Non-invasive quantitative assessment of induced component displacement can safely and accurately diagnose tibial component loosening in patients: A prospective diagnostic study

PURPOSE

Aseptic loosening often requires major, expensive and invasive revision surgery. Current diagnostic modalities merely show indirect signs of loosening. A recent proof of concept study proposed a non-invasive technique for the quantitative and visual assessment of implant movement as a diagnostic aid for tibial component loosening. The primary research question addressed is whether this novel diagnostic modality can safely and effectively aid the diagnosis of aseptic loosening.

METHODS

This clinical study included patients suspected of aseptic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) loosening listed for revision surgery and asymptomatic patients. Safety was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS) for discomfort and by registration of adverse events. Feasibility was assessed by recording the duration and ease of the procedure. Intra- and interrater reliability were evaluated. In symptomatic patients, diagnostic accuracy metrics were evaluated with intra-operative assessment as a reference test.

RESULTS

In total, 34 symptomatic and 38 asymptomatic knees with a TKA were analysed. The median NRS for discomfort during loading was 6 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.75-7.00) in symptomatic patients and 2 (IQR: 1.00-3.00) in asymptomatic patients. No adverse events were reported. The majority of users found the use of the loading device easy. The median time spent in the computed tomography room was 9 min (IQR: 8.00-11.00). Excellent to good intra- and interrater reliabilities were achieved. Diagnostic accuracy analysis resulted in a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.97) and a specificity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.43-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed diagnostic method is safe, feasible, reliable and accurate in aiding the diagnosis of aseptic tibial component loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Load-induced deformation of the tibia and its effect on implant loosening detection

CT imaging under external valgus and varus loading conditions and consecutive image analysis can be used to detect tibial implant loosening after total knee arthroplasty. However, the applied load causes the tibia to deform, which could result in an overestimation of implant displacement. This research evaluates the extent of tibia deformation and its effect on measuring implant displacement. Ten cadaver specimen with TKA were CT-scanned under valgus/varus loading (20 Nm), first implanted without bone cement fixation (mimicking a loose implant) and subsequently with bone cement fixation (mimicking a fixed implant). By means of image analysis, three relative displacements were assessed: (1) between the proximal and distal tibia (measure of deformation), (2) between the implant and the whole tibia (including potential deformation effect) and (3) between the implant and the proximal tibia (reduced deformation effect). Relative displacements were quantified in terms of translations along, and rotations about the axes of a local coordinate system. As a measure of deformation, the proximal tibia moved relative to the distal tibia by, on average 1.27 mm (± 0.50 mm) and 0.64° (± 0.25°). Deformation caused an overestimation of implant displacement in the cemented implant. The implant displaced with respect to the whole tibia by 0.45 mm (± 0.22 mm) and 0.79° (± 0.38°). Relative to the proximal tibia, the implant moved by 0.23 mm (± 0.10 mm) and 0.62° (± 0.34°). The differentiation between loose and fixed implants improved when tibia deformation was compensated for by using the proximal tibia rather than the whole tibia.