Cargando…
Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both?
AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26733514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36746 |
_version_ | 1782410248070365184 |
---|---|
author | Matharu, G. S. Mansour, R. Dada, O. Ostlere, S. Pandit, H. G. Murray, D. W. |
author_facet | Matharu, G. S. Mansour, R. Dada, O. Ostlere, S. Pandit, H. G. Murray, D. W. |
author_sort | Matharu, G. S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergoing revision surgery. METHODS: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study involved 39 patients (40 MoMHRs). The time between imaging modalities was a mean of 14.6 days (0 to 90), with imaging performed at a mean of 5.3 months (0.06 to 12) before revision. The prevalence of intra-operative pseudotumours was 82.5% (n = 33). RESULTS: Agreement with the intra-operative findings was 82.5% (n = 33) for ultrasound alone, 87.5% (n = 35) for MARS-MRI alone, and 92.5% (n = 37) for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined. The diagnostic characteristics for ultrasound alone and MARS-MRI alone reached similar sensitivities (90.9% vs 93.9%) and positive predictive values (PPVs; 88.2% vs 91.2%), but higher specificities (57.1% vs 42.9%) and negative predictive values (NPVs; 66.7% vs 50.0%) were achieved with MARS-MRI. Ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined produced 100% sensitivity and 100% NPV, whilst maintaining both specificity (57.1%) and PPV (91.7%). For the identification of a pseudotumour, which was confirmed at revision surgery, agreement was substantial for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined (κ = 0.69), moderate for MARS-MRI alone (κ = 0.54), and fair for ultrasound alone (κ = 0.36). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that ultrasound and/or MARS-MRI have a role when assessing patients with a MoMHR, with the choice dependent on local financial constraints and the availability of ultrasound expertise. However in patients with a MoMHR who require revision, combined imaging was most effective. Take home message: Combined imaging with ultrasound and MARS-MRI always identified intra-operative pseudotumours if present. Furthermore, if neither imaging modality showed a pseudotumour, one was not found intra-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:40–8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4714034 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47140342016-01-26 Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both? Matharu, G. S. Mansour, R. Dada, O. Ostlere, S. Pandit, H. G. Murray, D. W. Bone Joint J Hip AIMS: The aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic test characteristics of ultrasound alone, metal artefact reduction sequence MRI (MARS-MRI) alone, and ultrasound combined with MARS-MRI for identifying intra-operative pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) patients undergoing revision surgery. METHODS: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study involved 39 patients (40 MoMHRs). The time between imaging modalities was a mean of 14.6 days (0 to 90), with imaging performed at a mean of 5.3 months (0.06 to 12) before revision. The prevalence of intra-operative pseudotumours was 82.5% (n = 33). RESULTS: Agreement with the intra-operative findings was 82.5% (n = 33) for ultrasound alone, 87.5% (n = 35) for MARS-MRI alone, and 92.5% (n = 37) for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined. The diagnostic characteristics for ultrasound alone and MARS-MRI alone reached similar sensitivities (90.9% vs 93.9%) and positive predictive values (PPVs; 88.2% vs 91.2%), but higher specificities (57.1% vs 42.9%) and negative predictive values (NPVs; 66.7% vs 50.0%) were achieved with MARS-MRI. Ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined produced 100% sensitivity and 100% NPV, whilst maintaining both specificity (57.1%) and PPV (91.7%). For the identification of a pseudotumour, which was confirmed at revision surgery, agreement was substantial for ultrasound and MARS-MRI combined (κ = 0.69), moderate for MARS-MRI alone (κ = 0.54), and fair for ultrasound alone (κ = 0.36). DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that ultrasound and/or MARS-MRI have a role when assessing patients with a MoMHR, with the choice dependent on local financial constraints and the availability of ultrasound expertise. However in patients with a MoMHR who require revision, combined imaging was most effective. Take home message: Combined imaging with ultrasound and MARS-MRI always identified intra-operative pseudotumours if present. Furthermore, if neither imaging modality showed a pseudotumour, one was not found intra-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:40–8. British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2016-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4714034/ /pubmed/26733514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36746 Text en ©2016 Matharu et al This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions licence (CC-BY-NC), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, but not for commercial gain, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Hip Matharu, G. S. Mansour, R. Dada, O. Ostlere, S. Pandit, H. G. Murray, D. W. Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both? |
title | Which imaging modality is most
effective for identifying pseudotumours in
metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring
revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or
both? |
title_full | Which imaging modality is most
effective for identifying pseudotumours in
metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring
revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or
both? |
title_fullStr | Which imaging modality is most
effective for identifying pseudotumours in
metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring
revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or
both? |
title_full_unstemmed | Which imaging modality is most
effective for identifying pseudotumours in
metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring
revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or
both? |
title_short | Which imaging modality is most
effective for identifying pseudotumours in
metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring
revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or
both? |
title_sort | which imaging modality is most
effective for identifying pseudotumours in
metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring
revision: ultrasound or mars-mri or
both? |
topic | Hip |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714034/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26733514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36746 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT matharugs whichimagingmodalityismosteffectiveforidentifyingpseudotumoursinmetalonmetalhipresurfacingsrequiringrevisionultrasoundormarsmriorboth AT mansourr whichimagingmodalityismosteffectiveforidentifyingpseudotumoursinmetalonmetalhipresurfacingsrequiringrevisionultrasoundormarsmriorboth AT dadao whichimagingmodalityismosteffectiveforidentifyingpseudotumoursinmetalonmetalhipresurfacingsrequiringrevisionultrasoundormarsmriorboth AT ostleres whichimagingmodalityismosteffectiveforidentifyingpseudotumoursinmetalonmetalhipresurfacingsrequiringrevisionultrasoundormarsmriorboth AT pandithg whichimagingmodalityismosteffectiveforidentifyingpseudotumoursinmetalonmetalhipresurfacingsrequiringrevisionultrasoundormarsmriorboth AT murraydw whichimagingmodalityismosteffectiveforidentifyingpseudotumoursinmetalonmetalhipresurfacingsrequiringrevisionultrasoundormarsmriorboth |