Periprosthetic fractures of the femur following hip arthroplasty.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 19. Radiology. 2021 Sep;300(3):641-649. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021203510. Epub 2021 Jul 6. Diagnostic Performance of Dual-Energy CT for Detecting Painful Hip Prosthesis Loosening. Foti G(1), Fighera A(1), Campacci A(1), Natali S(1), Guerriero M(1), Zorzi C(1), Carbognin G(1). Author information: (1)From the Departments of Radiology (G.F., G.C.) and Orthopaedic Surgery (A.C., S.N., C.Z.) and the Clinical Research Unit (M.G.), IRCCS Sacro Cuore Don Calabria Hospital, Via Don A. Sempreboni 10, 37024 Negrar, Italy; and Department of Radiology (A.F.), Verona University Hospital, Verona, Italy. Comment in Radiology. 2021 Sep;300(3):650-651. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021211272. Background Revisions of hip prostheses are increasing, and conventional radiography (CR) is a primary tool for managing -complications. However, dual-energy CT (DECT) with virtual monoenergetic imaging is capable of reducing periprosthetic metal artifacts compared with standard CT. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of DECT and CR in detecting hip prosthesis loosening, using surgery as a reference for diagnosis. Materials and Methods This retrospective single-center study conducted between January 2018 and October 2020 included -consecutive patients with unilateral painful hip prostheses. Two independent readers (with 15 years and 4 years of experience) who were blinded to clinical findings evaluated CR and DECT images. At imaging, diagnosis of loosening prosthesis was made for -periprosthetic radiolucency greater than or equal to 2 mm wide or the presence of two or more secondary findings, including -periprosthetic osteolysis, angulation of the implant, fracture, or abnormal periosteal reaction. For each reader and for each imaging parameter, -sensitivity and specificity were calculated. The diagnostic performance of each imaging tool was compared by using the McNemar test. Interobserver agreements were calculated with Cohen κ statistics. Statistical software was used. Results Overall, 178 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 74 years ± 20; 96 men) were included (121 undergoing surgery, 57 follow-up). Overall, 87 of 178 patients (49%) were diagnosed with a loosened prosthesis. DECT had higher sensitivity and specificity than CR for both reader 1 (94% [82 of 87 examinations; 95% CI: 87, 98] and 93% [85 of 91 examinations; 95% CI: 86, 97] vs 84% [73 of 87 examinations; 95% CI: 74, 91] and 91% [83 of 91 examinations; 95% CI: 83, 96], respectively; P < .001) and reader 2 (92% [80 of 87 examinations; 95% CI: 84, 97] and 95% [86 of 91 examinations; 95% CI: 88, 98] vs 80% [70 of 87 -examinations; 95% CI: 71, 88] and 91% [83 of 91 examinations; 95% CI: 83, 96], respectively; P = .001), with better interobserver agreement (κ, 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.95] vs 0.78 [95% CI: 0.69, 0.88]). Conclusion Dual-energy CT showed better diagnostic performance than conventional radiography in diagnosing hip prosthesis loosening. See also the editorial by Lutz in this issue. © RSNA, 2021. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021203510