Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2002; 06(1): 079-086
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-23166
Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

MR Imaging of Joint Arthroplasty

Carolyn M. Sofka, Hollis G. Potter
  • Department of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 March 2002 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Imaging evaluation of the painful total joint arthroplasty has, in the past, been limited to conventional radiographs, arthrography, and nuclear scintigraphy. All three modalities provide some clinical information regarding the status of the prosthesis, adjacent bone, and surrounding soft tissues but are hampered by poor specificity, particularly nuclear scintigraphy.[1] Magnetic resonance imaging, using optimized pulse sequences to reduce the susceptibility artifact generated by the arthroplasty, can provide clinically relevant information regarding the prosthesis as well as the surrounding bone, soft tissues, and neurovascular structures.

KEYWORD

Magnetic resonance imaging - arthroplasty - artifacts

REFERENCES

  • 1 Duus B R, Boeckstyns M, Kjaer L, Stadeager C. Radionuclide scanning after total knee replacement: correlation with pain and radiolucent lines, a prospective study.  Invest Radiol . 1987;  22 891-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Wendt R E, Wilcott M R, Nitz W, Murphy P H, Bryan R N. MR imaging of susceptibility-induced magnetic field inhomogeneities.  Radiology . 1988;  168 837-841
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Olscamp A J, Tao S S, Savolaine E R, Ebraheim N A. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of Pipkin fractures fixated with titanium implants: a report of two cases.  Am J Orthoped . 1997;  26(4) 294-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Henk C B, Brodner W, Grampp S, Breitenscher M, Thurnher M, Mostbeck G H, Imhof H. The postoperative spine.  Top Magn Reson Imag . 1999;  10 247-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mueller P R, Stark D D, Simeone J F. MR-guided aspiration biopsy: needle design and clinical trials.  Radiology . 1986;  161 605-609
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 White L M, Kim J K, Mehta M. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience.  Radiology . 2000;  215 254-262
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Olsen R V, Munk P L, Lee M J, Janzen D L, MacKay A L, Xiang Q S, Masri B. Metal artifact reduction sequence: early clinical applications.  Radiographics . 2000;  20 699-712
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chang S D, Lee M J, Munk P L, Janzen D L, MacKay A, Xiang Q S. MRI of spinal hardware: comparison of conventional TI-weighted sequence with a new metal artifact reduction sequence.  Skel Radiol . 2001;  20 213-218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Peterslige 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.  Am J Roentgenol . 1996;  166 1213-1218
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Czerny C, Krestan C, Imhof H, Trattnig S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip.  Top Magn Reson Imag . 1999;  10 214-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Young I R, Cox I J, Bryant D J, Bydder G M. The benefits of increasing spatial resolution as a means of reducing artifacts due to field inhomogeneities.  Magn Reson Imag . 1988;  6 585-590
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Jensen J H, Chandra R. Strong field behavior of the NMR signal from magnetically heterogeneous tissues.  Magn Reson Med . 2000;  43 226-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hendrick R E. Basic physics of MR imaging: an introduction.  Radiographics . 1994;  14 829-846
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Taber K H, Herrick R C, Weathers S W, Kumar A J, Schomer D F, Hayman L A. Pitfalls and artifacts encountered in clinical MR imaging of the spine.  Radiographics . 1998;  18 1499-1521
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Colak A, Kutlay M, Demircan N, Secer H I, Kibici K, Basekim C. MR imaging for early complications of transpedicular screw fixation.  Eur Spine J . 1999;  8 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sled J G, Pike G B. Correction for B1 and B0 variations in quantitative T2 measurements using MRI.  Magn Reson Med . 2000;  43 589-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hilfiker P, Zanetti M, Debatin J F, McKinnon G, Hodler J. Fast spin-echo inversion-recovery imaging versus fast T2-weighted spin-echo imaging in bone marrow abnormalities.  Invest Radiol . 1995;  30 110-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Carson B W, Xiang Q S. Fat suppression using direct phase encoding: musculoskeletal applications using MR imaging.  Am J Roentgenol . 1999;  173 230-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mesgarzadeh M, Revesz G, Bonakdarpour A, Betz R R. The effect on medical metal implants by magnetic fields of magnetic resonance imaging.  Skel Radiol . 1985;  14 205-206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Davis P L, Crooks L, Arakawa M, McRee R, Kaufman L, Margulis A R. Potential hazards in NMR imaging: heating effects of changing magnetic fields and RF fields on small metallic implants.  Am J Roentgenol . 1981;  137 857-860
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Manaster B J. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation.  Radiographics . 1996;  16 645-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tigges S, Roberson J R, Cohen D E. Hip arthroplasty: the role of plain radiographs in outpatient management.  Radiology . 1995;  194 73-75
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tigges S, Stiles R G, Roberson J R. Appearance of septic hip prostheses on plain radiographs.  Am J Roentgenol . 1994;  163 377-380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Barrack R L, Jennings R W, Wolfe M W, Bertot A J. The value of preoperative aspiration before total knee revision.  Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research . 1997;  345 8-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Gould E S, Potter H G, Bober S E. Role of routine percutaneous hip aspirations prior to prosthesis revision.  Skel Radiol . 1990;  19 427-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Potter H G, Sofka C M, Peters L, Nestor B, Salvati E. Magnetic resonance imaging of total hip arthroplasty, to be presented at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons 69th Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, February 2002 . 
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Manaster B J. Total knee arthroplasty: postoperative radiologic findings.  Am J Roentgenol . 1995;  165 899-904
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kantor S G, Schneider R, Insall J N, Becker M W. Radionuclide imaging of asymptomatic versus symptomatic total knee arthroplasties.  Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research . 1990;  260 118-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sofka C M, Potter H G, Figgie M. Magnetic resonance imaging of total knee arthroplasty: findings, technique optimization and clinical relevance.  Radiology . 2000;  217 S576
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sperling J W, Potter H G, Craig E V, Flatow E, Warren R F. MRI of the painful shoulder arthroplasty.  J Shoulder Elbow Surg (In press).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar