The utility of repeat ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients

Targeting of Periprosthetic Muscles for the Ultrasonographic Screening of Hip Abnormalities in Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty Patients

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) patients require subsequent annual screening for postoperative complications. Ultrasonography may be useful for this purpose but lacks a screening protocol for hips. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography for detecting postoperative complications in HRA patients using a screening protocol that specifically targets periprosthetic muscles.

METHODS

We enrolled 45 hips from 40 HRA patients with a mean follow-up period of 8.2 years. MRI and ultrasonography scans were simultaneously conducted at follow-up. The ultrasonography assessments were conducted on the anterior part of the hip that targets iliopsoas, sartorius, rectus femoris, lateral with anterior superior and inferior iliac spine (ASIS and AIIS) as bony landmarks, and the lateral and posterior parts that target fascia tensor, short rotators, and gluteus minimus, medius, and maximus with greater trochanter and ischial tuberosity as bony landmarks. The accuracy of diagnosing postoperative abnormalities and the visibility of periprosthetic muscles were compared between these two modalities.

RESULTS

Both MRI and ultrasonography detected an abnormal region in eight cases comprising two infections, two pseudotumors, and four patients with greater trochanteric bursitis. Among these cases, four hips required implant removal. The increase in anterior space, measured as the distance between the iliopsoas and resurfacing head, was a good indicator for the abnormal mass in these four HRA cases. In the assessment of periprosthetic muscles, MRI showed a much lower visibility than ultrasonography in the iliopsoas (6.7% vs. 100%), gluteus minimus (6.7% vs. 88.9%), and short rotators (8.8% vs. 71.4%) due to implant halation.

CONCLUSIONS

By targeting periprosthetic muscles, ultrasonography can detect postoperative complications as effectively as MRI assessments in HRA patients. Ultrasonography has superior visibility in the periprosthetic muscles of HRA patients, indicating its utility for the screening of small legions in these cases which may not be visible by MRI.

How much does a Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency medical device alert for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients really cost?

BACKGROUND

Many worldwide regulatory authorities recommend regular surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients given high failure rates. However, concerns have been raised about whether such regular surveillance, which includes asymptomatic patients, is evidence-based and cost-effective. We determined: (1) the cost of implementing the 2015 MHRA surveillance in "at-risk" Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) patients; and (2) how many asymptomatic hips with adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) would have been missed without patient recall.

METHODS

All BHR patients eligible for the 2015 MHRA recall (all females, and males with head sizes ⩽46 mm, regardless of symptoms) at one centre were invited for review (hips = 707; patients = 593). All patients were investigated (Oxford Hip Score, radiographs, blood metal ions, and targeted cross-sectional imaging) and managed accordingly. Surveillance costs were calculated using finance department data.

RESULTS

The surveillance cost £105,921.79 (range £147.76-£257.50/patient). Radiographs (£39,598) and nurse practitioner time/assistance (£23,618) accounted for 60% of overall costs. 31 hips had ARMD on imaging (12 revised; 19 under surveillance). All revisions were symptomatic. 7 hips with ARMD under surveillance were asymptomatic and remain under regular review. The number needed to treat to avoid missing one asymptomatic ARMD case was 101 patients, representing a cost of £18,041 to avoid one asymptomatic case.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing MHRA surveillance for "at-risk" BHR patients was extremely costly. The risk of asymptomatic ARMD was low with the BHR (1%), suggesting recommended follow-up in asymptomatic patients is not cost efficient. This raises concerns about the increasingly intensive surveillance recommended in the 2017 MHRA guidance for metal-on-metal hip patients.

The Outcome of Revision Surgery for Failed Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties (MoM THAs) are frequently revised, though there is a paucity of functional outcome data. We report on outcomes and prognostic factors predictive of outcome from the largest series of MoM THA revisions to date.

METHODS

A single-center consecutive series of revisions from MoM THAs was identified. The cohort was divided by the presence or absence of symptoms prior to revision. The primary outcome was functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score [OHS]). Secondary outcomes were complication data, pre-revision and post-revision blood metal ions, and modified Oxford classification of pre-revision magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty revisions at median follow-up of 5.48 years were identified. Median OHS improved from 29 to 37 with revision (P < .001). Symptomatic patients experienced the greatest functional benefit (ΔOHS 6.5 vs 1.4, P = .012), while the function of asymptomatic patients was unaffected by revision (P = .4). Use of a cobalt-chromium-containing bearing surface at revision and increased body mass index were predictive of poor functional outcome.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients experience greater functional benefit from revision surgery but do not regain the same level of function as patients who were asymptomatic prior to revision. Body mass index and use of cobalt-chromium-containing bearing surfaces are prognostic for poor functional outcome.

Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris

Background and purpose - The initial outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) were poor. Furthermore, robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision are lacking. This article is the second of 2. The first article considered the various investigative modalities used during MoMHA patient surveillance (Matharu et al. 2018a ). The present article aims to provide a clinical update regarding ARMD revision surgery in MoMHA patients (hip resurfacing and large-diameter MoM total hip arthroplasty), with specific focus on the threshold for performing ARMD revision, the surgical strategy, and the outcomes following revision. Results and interpretation - The outcomes following ARMD revision surgery appear to have improved with time for several reasons, among them the introduction of regular patient surveillance and lowering of the threshold for performing revision. Furthermore, registry data suggest that outcomes following ARMD revision are influenced by modifiable factors (type of revision procedure and bearing surface implanted), meaning surgeons could potentially reduce failure rates. However, additional large multi-center studies are needed to develop robust thresholds for performing ARMD revision surgery, which will guide surgeons' treatment of MoMHA patients. The long-term systemic effects of metal ion exposure in patients with these implants must also be investigated, which will help establish whether there are any systemic reasons to recommend revision of MoMHAs.

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

The unexpected high revision rates of large-diameter (femoral head sizes of 36 mm or greater) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) have led to worldwide regulatory authorities recommending regular surveillance, even for asymptomatic individuals. However, these recommendations are not evidence-based and are very costly. The rapidly evolving evidence base requires an update regarding the investigation and management of MoMHA patients. This article is the first of 2 (the second article in this series will consider the threshold for performing revision, and the outcomes following ARMD revision surgery: Matharu et al., Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris: A clinical update. Acta Orthop 2018; in press), and considers the various investigative modalities used during surveillance, with specific focus on blood metal ion sampling and cross-sectional imaging. No single investigation can universally be used during MoMHA patient surveillance. Recent studies have now provided important information on interpreting blood metal ions (effective in identifying patients at low risk of problems), clarifying the roles of cross-sectional imaging (reserve combined ultrasound and MARS-MRI for complex cases), and providing parameters to safely exclude many asymptomatic patients from regular surveillance. This information will be useful when designing future surveillance protocols for MoMHA patients.

Usefulness of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of hematoma after primary hip arthroplasty

Introduction

To date, suction drainage has been routinely used after hip joint replacement. Currently, the validity of this practice is questioned in the literature. Hematoma is a risk factor of periprosthetic infection. Post-operative ultrasonography enables precise assessment of hip joint hematoma.

Aim

The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of hip joint ultrasonography with respect to the validity of using suction drainage after primary hip arthroplasty.

Material

Inclusion criteria: coxarthrosis. Exclusion criteria: primary and secondary coagulopathy, renal or hepatic failure and history of venous or arterial thrombosis. In total, 90 patients were enrolled.

Methods

The study was prospective. The patients were assigned into groups in accordance with simple randomization. On the third day postsurgery, an ultrasound examination was conducted in all patients.

Results

Deep infection was found in two patients with suction drainage. Hematoma was almost twice bigger in the drainage group. There were no statistically significant differences in the Harris Hip Score between the groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in: complete blood count parameters and C-reactive protein values in the first and third day after surgery, the amount of transfused packed red blood cells, duration of hospital stay, cost of hospital stay and the relationship between osteophyte removal and hematoma size.

Conclusions

Ultrasonography performed after hip replacement surgeries is useful in the assessment of hematoma. The randomized study did not reveal statistically significant differences between the group with and without drainage, thus suggesting that this practice can be abandoned, except for selected cases. Due to a short hospital stay, it is recommended to conduct an ultrasound scan in addition to routine radiography and laboratory tests in order to reduce the risk of complications.

What is the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing patients?

PURPOSE

We assessed the natural history of asymptomatic pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs), and factors associated with future revision.

METHODS

In 2007-2008, we identified 25 MoMHRs (21 patients; mean age 59.9 years; 76% female) with asymptomatic pseudotumours. All patients underwent identical initial assessment (ultrasound, blood metal ions, radiographs, Oxford Hip Score [OHS]) and were considered asymptomatic because they denied experiencing hip symptoms, were satisfied with their MoMHR surgery, and had good or excellent OHSs (≥34). In 2012-2013, repeat assessments were performed in all non-revised patients.

RESULTS

Revision for pseudotumour was performed/recommended in 15 MoMHRs (60%) at a mean 2.7 years (range 0.4-6.4 years) from initial assessment, with 14 developing symptoms before revision. Non-revised MoMHRs (n = 10) underwent repeat ultrasound at a mean 5.1 years (range 4.0-6.5 years) later, with no changes in pseudotumour volume (p = 0.956) or OHS (p = 0.065) between assessments. High blood cobalt (p = 0.0048) and chromium (p = 0.0162), large pseudotumours (p = 0.0458), low OHS (p = 0.0183), and bilateral MoMHRs (p = 0.049) predicted future revision. Patients with blood metal ions above established unilateral/bilateral thresholds and/or initial pseudotumours &gt;30 cm3 had an 86.7% sensitivity, 70.0% specificity, 81.2% positive predictive value, and 77.8% negative predictive value for future revision.

CONCLUSIONS

MoMHR patients with initially asymptomatic pseudotumours often become symptomatic and require revision. Patients with high blood metal ions and/or pseudotumours &gt;30 cm3 should remain under annual surveillance or be considered for revision (especially in patients also having lower initial OHSs, bilateral MoMHRs, and/or those becoming symptomatic). Less regular surveillance of patients outside these parameters appears acceptable.

Developments in imaging methods used in hip arthroplasty: A diagnostic algorithm

BACKGROUND

Several imaging modalities can be used to diagnose complications of hip prosthesis placement. Despite progress in these imaging techniques, there are, as yet, no guidelines as to their respective indications.

METHODS

We formed a panel of experts in fields related to prosthesis imaging (radiology, nuclear medicine, orthopedic surgery) and conducted a review of the literature to determine the value of each modality for diagnosing complications following hip replacement.

RESULTS

Few recent studies have investigated the benefits related to the use of the latest technical developments, and studies comparing different methods are extremely rare.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a diagnostic tree based on the characteristics of each imaging technique and recommend its use. Computed topography was found to be the most versatile and cost-effective imaging solution and therefore a key tool for diagnosing the complications of hip replacement surgery.

Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both?

Aims

The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergoing revision surgery.

Methods

This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study involved 39 patients (40 MoMHRs). The time between imaging modalities was a mean of 14.6 days (0 to 90), with imaging performed at a mean of 5.3 months (0.06 to 12) before revision. The prevalence of intra-operative pseudotumours was 82.5% (n = 33).

Results

Agreement with the intra-operative findings was 82.5% (n = 33) for ultrasound alone, 87.5% (n = 35) for MARS-MRI alone, and 92.5% (n = 37) for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined. The diagnostic characteristics for ultrasound alone and MARS-MRI alone reached similar sensitivities (90.9% vs 93.9%) and positive predictive values (PPVs; 88.2% vs 91.2%), but higher specificities (57.1% vs 42.9%) and negative predictive values (NPVs; 66.7% vs 50.0%) were achieved with MARS-MRI. Ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined produced 100% sensitivity and 100% NPV, whilst maintaining both specificity (57.1%) and PPV (91.7%).

For the identification of a pseudotumour, which was confirmed at revision surgery, agreement was substantial for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined (κ = 0.69), moderate for MARS-MRI alone (κ = 0.54), and fair for ultrasound alone (κ = 0.36).

Discussion

These findings suggest that ultrasound and/or MARS-MRI have a role when assessing patients with a MoMHR, with the choice dependent on local financial constraints and the availability of ultrasound expertise. However in patients with a MoMHR who require revision, combined imaging was most effective.

Take home message: Combined imaging with ultrasound and MARS-MRI always identified intra-operative pseudotumours if present. Furthermore, if neither imaging modality showed a pseudotumour, one was not found intra-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:40–8.