Best Practices: Best Imaging Modality for Surveillance of Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty

• Published in: American journal of roentgenology (1976) Vol. 216; no. 2; pp. 311 - 317
• Main Authors: Petscavage-Thomas, Jonelle M, Ha, Alice
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.02.2021
• Subjects: Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - instrumentation; Female; Hip Prosthesis - adverse effects; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Metal-on-Metal Joint Prostheses - adverse effects; Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Prosthesis Failure; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography; MRI; ARMD; metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty; ultrasound; ALTR
• ISSN: 0361-803X; 1546-3141
• DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22344

Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty has been shown to result in soft-tissue complications in some patients, making revision surgery necessary. Imaging is critical in the detection and surveillance of soft-tissue complications, which are collectively termed adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) and adverse local tissue reaction. Studies have investigated the use of ultrasound, MRI, and CT for detecting ARMD, and each modality has advantages and disadvantages. This article provides evidence-based recommendations for imaging surveillance of ARMD. Compared with ultrasound, MRI has been found to be a better imaging modality for surveillance of ARMD. In addition, MRI is not operator dependent, allows visualization of soft-tissue details, and allows more consistent measurement of fluid collections on follow-up examinations. Limitations of ultrasound include operator skill, the inability to visualize osseous structures, and the challenge of visualizing posterior soft tissues for synovitis and fluid collections in larger patients. Finally, CT is only useful for focused evaluation of osteolysis or periprosthetic fracture.