Association of hip joint effusion volume with early osteonecrosis of the femoral head

CT and MRI findings beyond the subchondral bone in osteonecrosis of the femoral head to distinguish between ARCO stages 2 and 3A

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic values of deep changes beyond the subchondral bone in osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) to distinguish between Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) stages 2 and 3A.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 124 hips with ONFH of stages 2 (n = 49; 23 females; mean age, 50.7 years) and 3A (n = 75; 20 females; mean age, 53.2 years) from May 2017 to August 2022, who underwent CT (n = 124) and MRI (n = 85). Deep changes beyond subchondral bone were analyzed on CT (bone resorption area and cystic change) and on MRI (bone marrow edema [BME] and joint effusion). Diagnostic performance and multivariate analysis were evaluated for detecting stage 3A.

RESULTS

Stage 3A showed more frequent bone resorption area (72.0% vs. 4.1%), cystic change (52.0% vs. 0.0%), BME (93.5% vs. 43.6%), and joint effusion (76.0% vs. 24.5%) than stage 2 (p < 0.001, all). Bone resorption area and cystic change showed low sensitivities (52.0~72.0%) but high specificities (96.0~100.0%), while BME and joint effusion showed high sensitivities (76.0~93.0%) but low specificities (56.0~76.0%) for stage 3A. Predictors were in the order of bone resorption area, cystic change, and joint effusion (odds ratio: 32.952, 26.281, 9.603, respectively), and combined bone resorption area and cystic change had the best predictive value (AUC, 0.900) for stage 3A.

CONCLUSIONS

Among deep changes, bone resorption area and cystic changes were highly specific and BME and joint effusion were highly sensitive for stage 3A. Combined bone resorption area and cystic change had the best predictive value for predicting ARCO stage 3A.

KEY POINTS

• The exact classification between ARCO stage 2 and 3A is essential but it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between ARCO stage 2 and 3A only by subchondral fracture, especially early post-collapse stage with preservation of femoral head contour. • The predictors of stage 3A were in the order of bone resorption area, cystic change, and joint effusion and combined bone resorption area and cystic change had the best predictive value for predicting stage 3A. • Analysis of deep changes beyond the subchondral bone may make it easier to distinguish between ARCO stage 2 and 3A.

Ultrasound-guided injection with hyaluronic acid in hip osteoarthritis: efficacy and safety in a real-life setting

BACKGROUND

For knee OA, EULAR has included hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection in the 2003 recommendations, making the intra-articular injection a sound therapeutic option. The ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections (USGIAI) have been demonstrated to be more efficient and safe in comparison to the blind procedure. Our objectives were to evaluate the short- and medium-term efficacy and safety of USGIAI of HA in moderate hip OA and patients' additional NSAIDs/pain killer intake.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with hip OA (KLG II/III), that failed standard of care therapy, received 3 consecutive HA-USGIAI (case group) while other patients (KLG II/III) treated according to current guidelines were chosen as a control group. Demographic data, comorbidities and medication intake were recorded. VAS pain scale and WOMAC score were performed at baseline and at 3 months. In the case group, they were additionally scored at 6 months. At baseline and at 6 months, hip X-ray assessment was also made. Ultrasound evaluation was made at each visit.

RESULTS

In the case group, 15 patients were enrolled and 28 hip joints were injected. The control group consisted of 17 hip OA patients. In the case group, pain evaluated by VAS score and WOMAC score were significantly and progressively decreased (p < 0.0001) from baseline up to 3 and 6 months, respectively. Indeed, the case group showed a significantly lower NSAIDs/pain killer median intake at 3 months from baseline (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that HA-USGIAI may be an effective and safe treatment for moderate hip OA with short- and medium-term benefits. Key Points • US hip evaluation before interventional maneuvers may identify capsular distension suggestive for concomitant septic involvement, microcrystal arthropathy or incipient hip osteonecrosis. • USGIAI may be fundamental to achieve an efficacious and safe injection. • HA-USGIAI may be an effective and safe treatment for moderate hip OA with short- and medium-term benefits.

Magnetic resonance imaging of avascular necrosis of the femoral head: predictive findings of total hip arthroplasty

Background

Avascular osteonecrosis of the femoral head (AVNFH) is an ischemic condition which despite different treatments often leads to collapse of the femoral head and to total hip arthroplasty. However, the magnetic resonance imaging findings predisposing to disease progression and total hip arthroplasty are somewhat elusive.

Purpose

To evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging findings of AVNFH and to assess the patterns of findings which may predict total hip arthroplasty.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study was conducted with a total of 18 diagnosed AVNFH treated with core decompression combined with intraosseous stem cell treatment. After treatment, magnetic resonance imaging follow-ups were done at three-month and one-year follow-up or until total hip arthroplasty. Association Research Circulation Osseous classification and magnetic resonance imaging findings such as the size and the location of the AVNFH, bone marrow edema in femoral neck, effusion and subchondral fracture were evaluated.

Results

Hips advancing to total hip arthroplasty have more often bone marrow edema in femoral neck (90% vs. 0%), adjacent to necrotic lesion (100% vs. 43%) and in acetabulum (90% vs. 14%), but also subchondral fractures (70% vs. 0%), effusion (80% vs. 29%), and synovitis (80% vs. 14,3%). The greater size and the lateral weight-bearing location of the necrotic lesion also predicted future total hip arthroplasty.

Conclusion

Hips advancing to total hip arthroplasty have often a combination of pathognomonic AVNFH imaging findings compared to hips not advancing to total hip arthroplasty.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria Osteonecrosis of the Hip

Osteonecrosis of the hip (Legg-Calvé-Perthes) is a common disease, with 10,000-20,000 symptomatic cases annually in the United States. The disorder affects both adults and children and is most frequently associated with trauma and corticosteroid usage. The initial imaging evaluation of suspected hip osteonecrosis is done using radiography. MRI is the most sensitive and specific imaging modality for diagnosis of osteonecrosis of the hip. The clinical significance of hip osteonecrosis is dependent on its potential for articular collapse. The likelihood of articular collapse is significantly increased with involvement of greater than 30%-50% of the femoral head area, which is optimally evaluated by MRI, often in the sagittal plane. Contrast-enhanced MRI may be needed to detect early osteonecrosis of the hip in pediatric patients, revealing hypoperfusion. In patients with a contraindication for MRI, use of either CT or bone scintigraphy with SPECT (single-photon emission CT) are alternative radiologic methods of assessment. Imaging helps guide treatment, which may include core decompression, osteotomy, and ultimately, need for joint replacement. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria(®) are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

S3-Guideline non-traumatic adult femoral head necrosis

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of adult non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVN; N-ANFH) within an estimated incidence of 5000-7000 cases per annum in Germany remains a challenge. Risk factors include steroids, alcohol abuse, chemotherapy and immunosuppressive medication, but a genetic predisposition has been suggested. Early diagnosis of this often bilateral disease process is essential for successful conservative or joint preserving surgical management. In this review, we present the update German consensus S3 guideline "diagnosis and management for N-ANFH" as a concise summary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review is based on the published literature from January 1, 1970 to April 31, 2013 (German and English language). Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses and relevant peer review publications. We identified a total of 3715 related publications, of which 422 were suitable according to the SIGN criteria, but only 159 fulfilled our inclusion criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Clinical suspicion of N-ANFH mandates radiographic evaluation. If radiographs are normal MRI scans are recommended, which should be evaluated according to the ARCO-classification. Differential diagnoses include transient osteoporosis, bone bruise, insufficiency fracture and destructive arthropathy. Untreated, subchondral fractures commonly occur within 2 years, during which the risk for contralateral involvement is high-thereafter unlikely. Conservative management with Ilomedin and Alendronat can be tried, but other pharmacological or physical treatments are inappropriate. No specific joint preserving procedure can be recommended, but core decompression should be considered in early stages if necrosis is <30 %. In ARCO stages IIIc or IV total hip arthroplasty (THA) should be contemplated, which offers similar outcome compared to osteoarthritis. Young age is the main risk factor for higher revision rates after THA for N-ANFH.

From the radiologic pathology archives imaging of osteonecrosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation

Osteonecrosis is common and represents loss of blood supply to a region of bone. Common sites affected include the femoral head, humeral head, knee, femoral/tibial metadiaphysis, scaphoid, lunate, and talus. Symptomatic femoral head osteonecrosis accounts for 10,000-20,000 new cases annually in the United States. In contradistinction, metadiaphyseal osteonecrosis is often occult and asymptomatic. There are numerous causes of osteonecrosis most commonly related to trauma, corticosteroids, and idiopathic. Imaging of osteonecrosis is frequently diagnostic with a serpentine rim of sclerosis on radiographs, photopenia in early disease at bone scintigraphy, and maintained yellow marrow at MR imaging with a serpentine rim of high signal intensity (double-line sign) on images obtained with long repetition time sequences. These radiologic features correspond to the underlying pathology of osseous response to wall off the osteonecrotic process and attempts at repair with vascularized granulation tissue at the reactive interface. The long-term clinical importance of epiphyseal osteonecrosis is almost exclusively based on the likelihood of overlying articular collapse. MR imaging is generally considered the most sensitive and specific imaging modality both for early diagnosis and identifying features that increase the possibility of this complication. Treatment subsequent to articular collapse and development of secondary osteoarthritis typically requires reconstructive surgery. Malignant transformation of osteonecrosis is rare and almost exclusively associated with metadiaphyseal lesions. Imaging features of this dire sequela include aggressive bone destruction about the lesion margin, cortical involvement, and an associated soft-tissue mass. Recognizing the appearance of osteonecrosis, which reflects the underlying pathology, improves radiologic assessment and is important to guide optimal patient management.

Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: Where Do We Stand Today? A Ten-Year Update

➤ Although multiple theories have been proposed, no one pathophysiologic mechanism has been identified as the etiology for the development of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. However, the basic mechanism involves impaired circulation to a specific area that ultimately becomes necrotic.➤ A variety of nonoperative treatment regimens have been evaluated for the treatment of precollapse disease, with varying success. Prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of these regimens in altering the natural history of the disease.➤ Joint-preserving procedures are indicated in the treatment of precollapse disease, with several studies showing successful outcomes at mid-term and long-term follow-up.➤ Studies of total joint arthroplasty, once femoral head collapse is present, have described excellent outcomes at greater than ten years of follow-up, which is a major advance and has led to a paradigm shift in treating these patients.➤ The results of hemiresurfacing and total resurfacing arthroplasty have been suboptimal, and these procedures have restricted indications in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Imaging evaluation of patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head

Imaging modalities for the diagnosis of osteonecrosis (ON) of the femoral head have been studied extensively, but there have been few reports strictly addressing radiographic evaluation. The purpose of this report is to examine the use and role of (1) plain radiographs, (2) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), (3) computerized tomography (CT), (4) bone scanning, and (5) positron emission topography (PET) for the diagnostic evaluation of ON. Plain radiographs are a mainstay in diagnosis but have very low sensitivity for early ON. MRI is the gold standard for diagnostic evaluation but may not identify subchondral fractures on collapse as well as CT scan or tomogram. Bone scanning should not be used for diagnosis due to its low sensitivity. PET scanning does not have a definitive role in diagnosis yet. Future research should focus on the role of new imaging technologies in evaluation.