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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matharu, G. S., Mansour, R., Dada, O., Ostlere, S., Pandit, H. G., Murray, D. W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery 2016
Materias:
Hip
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