Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Joint Replacements

Ali M. Naraghi; Lawrence M. White

doi:10.1055/s-2006-934220

Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2006; 10(1): 098-106
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-934220

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Joint Replacements

Ali M. Naraghi¹ , Lawrence M. White²

¹Royal London Hospital, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, London, United Kingdom
²Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

ABSTRACT

An increasing number of joint replacements are being performed annually. Complications of joint arthroplasty are diverse and may involve the hardware as well as osseous and soft tissue components. Although modalities such as conventional radiography and scintigraphy remain the mainstay of radiological investigation, in some cases these traditional methods of imaging may be negative or underestimate the extent of disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been considered of limited benefit following arthroplasty because of severe image degradation caused by metallic components. However, with modification of pulse sequences, artifact reduction and improved visualization of periprosthetic tissues are achievable, enabling a comprehensive assessment of articular and nonarticular pathologies. The common artifacts in the presence of orthopedic hardware, optimization of pulse sequences to minimize metal-related artifacts, and the clinical uses of MRI following joint replacement, particularly with regard to total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, and shoulder arthroplasty, are reviewed.

KEYWORDS

Magnetic resonance imaging - artifacts - arthroplasty

Volltext

Referenzen

REFERENCES

1 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons .Arthroplasty and Total Joint Replacement Procedures 1991-2000. Available at http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/research/arthropl.htm Accessed October 12, 2004
2 Teeny S M, York S C, Mesko J W, Rea R E. Long-term follow-up care recommendations after total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18 954-962
3 Eustace S, Shah B, Mason M. Imaging orthopedic hardware with an emphasis on hip prostheses. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998; 29 67-84
4 Chandler H P, Reineck F T, Wixson R L. Imaging orthopedic hardware with an emphasis on hip prostheses. Total hip replacement in patients younger than thirty years old. A five-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1981; 63 1426-1434
5 Weissman B N. Current topics in the radiology of joint replacement surgery. Radiol Clin North Am. 1990; 28 1111-1134
6 Callaghan J J, O'Rourke M R, Saleh K J. Why knees fail: lessons learned. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(4 Suppl 1) 31-34
7 Bozic K J, Rubash H E. The painful total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 420 18-25
8 Dennis D A. Evaluation of painful total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(4 Suppl 1) 35-40
9 Guermazi A, Miaux Y, Zaim S, Peterfy C G, White D, Genant H K. Metallic artefacts in MR imaging: effects of main field orientation and strength. Clin Radiol. 2003; 58 322-328
10 Suh J S, Jeong E K, Shin K H et al.. Minimizing artifacts caused by metallic implants at MR imaging: experimental and clinical studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171 1207-1213
11 Eustace S, Jara H, Goldberg R et al.. A comparison of conventional spin-echo and turbo spin-echo imaging of soft tissues adjacent to orthopedic hardware. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 170 455-458
12 Ganapathi M, Joseph G, Savage R, Jones A R, Timms B, Lyons K. MRI susceptibility artefacts related to scaphoid screws: the effect of screw type, screw orientation and imaging parameters. J Hand Surg [Br]. 2002; 27 165-170
13 Laakman R W, Kaufman B, Han J S et al.. MR imaging in patients with metallic implants. Radiology. 1985; 157 711-714
14 Petersilge C A, Lewin J S, Duerk J L, Yoo J U, Ghaneyem A J. Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996; 166 1213-1218
15 White L M, Kim J K, Mehta M et al.. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology. 2000; 215 254-262
16 White L M, Buckwalter K A. Technical considerations: CT and MR imaging in the postoperative orthopedic patient. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2002; 6 5-17
17 Czervionke L F, Daniels D L, Wehrli F W et al.. Magnetic susceptibility artifacts in gradient-recalled echo MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1988; 9 1149-1155
18 Tien R D, Buxton R B, Schwaighofer B W, Chu P K. Quantitation of structural distortion of the cervical neural foramina in gradient-echo MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991; 1 683-687
19 Tormanen J, Tervonen O, Koivula A, Junila J, Suramo I. Image technique optimization in MR imaging of a titanium alloy joint prosthesis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996; 6 805-811
20 Ludeke K M, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1985; 3 329-343
21 Arbogast-Ravier S, Gangi A, Choquet P, Brunot B, Constantinesco A. An in vitro study at low field for MR guidance of a biopsy needle. Magn Reson Imaging. 1995; 13 321-324
22 Jensen J H, Chandra R. Strong field behavior of the NMR signal from magnetically heterogeneous tissues. Magn Reson Med. 2000; 43 226-236
23 Sofka C M, Potter H G. MR imaging of joint arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2002; 6 79-85
24 Olsen R V, Munk P L, Lee M J et al.. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications. Radiographics. 2000; 20 699-712
25 Frazzini V I, Kagetsu N J, Johnson C E, Destian S. Internally stabilized spine: optimal choice of frequency-encoding gradient direction during MR imaging minimizes susceptibility artifact from titanium vertebral body screws. Radiology. 1997; 204 268-272
26 Viano A M, Gronemeyer S A, Haliloglu M, Hoffer F A. Improved MR imaging for patients with metallic implants. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000; 18 287-295
27 Tartaglino L M, Flanders A E, Vinitski S, Friedman D P. Metallic artifacts on MR images of the postoperative spine: reduction with fast spin-echo techniques. Radiology. 1994; 190 565-569
28 Bakker C J, Bhagwandien R, Moerland M A, Fuderer M. Susceptibility artifacts in 2DFT spin-echo and gradient-echo imaging: the cylinder model revisited. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993; 11 539-548
29 Czerny C, Krestan C, Imhof H, Trattnig S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 10 214-220
30 Dixon W T. Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1984; 153 189-194
31 Moriguchi H, Lewin J S, Duerk J L. Dixon techniques in spiral trajectories with off-resonance correction: a new approach for fat signal suppression without spatial-spectral RF pulses. Magn Reson Med. 2003; 50 915-924
32 Rybicki F J, Chung T, Reid J, Jaramillo D, Mulkern R V, Ma J. Fast three-point Dixon MR imaging using low-resolution images for phase correction: a comparison with chemical shift selective fat suppression for pediatric musculoskeletal imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177 1019-1023
33 Wohlgemuth W A, Roemer F W, Bohndorf K. Short tau inversion recovery and three-point Dixon water-fat separation sequences in acute traumatic bone fractures at open 0.35 tesla MRI. Skeletal Radiol. 2002; 31 343-348
34 Ma J, Singh S K, Kumar A J, Leeds N E, Zhan J. T2-weighted spine imaging with a fast three-point Dixon technique: comparison with chemical shift selective fat suppression. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 20 1025-1029
35 Huegli R W, Tirman P F, Bonel H M et al.. Use of the modified three-point Dixon technique in obtaining T1-weighted contrast-enhanced fat-saturated images on an open magnet. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14 1781-1786
36 Ramos Cabrer P, van Duynhoven JPM, Van der Toorn A, Nicolay K. MRI of hip prostheses using single-point methods: in vitro studies towards the artifact-free imaging of individuals with metal implants. Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 22 1097-1103
37 Tigges S, Stiles R G, Roberson J R. Complications of hip arthroplasty causing periprosthetic radiolucency on plain radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994; 162 1387-1391
38 Twair A, Ryan M, O'Connell M, Powell T, O'Byrne J, Eustace S. MRI of failed total hip replacement caused by abductor muscle avulsion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181 1547-1550
39 Pfirrmann C, Zanetti M, Dora C, Hodler J. MR imaging of abductor tendons and muscles after total hip arthroplasty in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (SSK24-06);. December 1, 2004 Chicago, IL;
40 Potter H G, Nestor B J, Sofka C M, Ho S T, Peters L E, Salvati E A. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86 1947-1954
41 Cook S M, Pellicci P M, Potter H G. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of an occult fracture of the femoral component after total hip arthroplasty. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86 149-153
42 Sugimoto H, Hirose I, Miyaoka E et al.. Low-field-strength MR imaging of failed hip arthroplasty: association of femoral periprosthetic signal intensity with radiographic, surgical, and pathologic findings. Radiology. 2003; 229 718-723
43 Vince K G. Why knees fail. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18(3, Suppl 1) 39-44
44 Fehring T K, Odum S, Griffin W L, Mason J B, Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 392 315-318
45 Sharkey P F, Hozack W J, Rothman R H, Shastri S, Jacoby S M. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 404 7-13
46 Sofka C M, Potter H G, Figgie M, Laskin R. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; 406 129-135
47 Sperling J W, Potter H G, Craig E V, Flatow E, Warren R F. Magnetic resonance imaging of painful shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11 315-321
48 Goutallier D, Postel J M, Zilber S, Van Driessche S. Shoulder surgery: from cuff repair to joint replacement. An update. Joint Bone Spine. 2003; 70 422-432

Lawrence M WhiteM.D.

Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Department of Diagnostic Imaging

600 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 1X5