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

OBJECTIVE. 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. CONCLUSION. 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.

Automated summary

In the surveillance of ARMD, MRI has been found to be a superior imaging modality compared to ultrasound. MRI is independent of operator skill, provides visualization of soft-tissue details, and enables consistent measurement of fluid collections on follow-up exams. Ultrasound limitations include operator dependence, inability to visualize osseous structures, and challenges in visualizing posterior soft tissues in larger patients.