Imaging
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ostlere, S
Right arrow Articles by Soin, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ostlere, S
Right arrow Articles by Soin, S

Imaging of prosthetic joints

S Ostlere, FRCR and S Soin, MB BChir

Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK



View larger version (74K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Periprosthetic fracture. The tip of the prosthesis has breached the cortex of the femur (arrows).

 


View larger version (107K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Dislocation of the hip joint soon after surgery.

 


View larger version (43K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Ultrasound of an infected hip. (a) There is a large multilocular collection with an echogenic component (arrows). (b) The collection lies just deep to the scar but is seen to extend down to the neck of the femoral component which appears as a well defined echogenic line (arrow).

 


View larger version (104K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 4. Loose cemented prostheses. Wide extensive lucency at the bone/cement interface is seen at (a) a femoral and (b) an acetabular component (arrows).

 


View larger version (81K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 5. Migration of the prosthesis. (a) Femoral component showing subsidence with wide lucency at the prosthesis cement interface proximally and laterally (arrow). (b) Acetabular migration. The cup and cement has migrated medially into the pelvis.

 


View larger version (78K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 6. Loose femoral component. There is a fracture of the cement around the distal end of the femoral component indicating loosening.

 


View larger version (78K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 7. Loose femoral component. There is a fracture of the prosthesis (arrow).

 


View larger version (90K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 8. Loose uncemented femoral component. There is excessive lucency seen around the tip of the uncemented prosthesis indicating loosening (arrows).

 


View larger version (82K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 9. Uncemented femoral component. Cortical thickening (arrow) and pedestal formation (arrowhead) at the tip of an uncemented femoral prosthesis. Although associated with loosening these signs can be seen in asymptomatic hips.

 


View larger version (86K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 10. Loose uncemented acetabular component. This threaded screw design had a high failure rate. There is extensive lucency around the component (arrows).

 


View larger version (112K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 11. Wear of polyethylene liner. There is marked loss of the liner superiorly (arrow). The resulting microscopic fragments may stimulate granuloma formation.

 


View larger version (126K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 12. Granuloma formation. (a) Focal endosteal scalloping at the distal end of the prosthesis indicating histiocytic granuloma formation (arrow) and (b) more extensive bony destruction distal to the tip of the femoral prosthesis (arrows).

 


View larger version (87K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 13. The seven femoral and three acetabular zones as described by Gruen and Delee [6, 7].

 


View larger version (131K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 14. Arthrogram showing communication with the trochanteric bursa (arrows).

 


View larger version (154K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 15. MRI of periprosthetic abscess. T2 weighted axial image showing a high signal collection adjacent to the femur (arrows). Note that there is only minimal artefact from the prosthesis.

 


View larger version (118K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 16. Bone scan showing diffuse uptake around the femoral prosthesis. Although this pattern may suggest infection it is also seen in aseptic loosening.

 


View larger version (79K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 17. Bone scan in a patient with a painful uncemented total hip replacement. (a) There is focal uptake at the tip of the uncemented prosthesis. (b) Plain film shows a lucency and sclerotic reactive line adjacent to the tip (arrow).

 


View larger version (96K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 18. Normal appearances of a metal-on-metal surface replacement.

 


View larger version (77K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 19. Failed hemiarthroplasty. The head has migrated medially into the pelvis (arrow). There is also lucency at the cement–bone interface (arrow heads).

 


View larger version (76K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 20. Revision total hip replacement. There is a wide lucency around the femoral component (arrows) which may be a normal appearance following revision.

 


View larger version (113K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 21. Heterotopic ossification following total hip replacement. There is extensive soft tissue ossification laterally which has fused the hip joint (arrow).

 


View larger version (121K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 22. The seven zone of the tibial component used by the Knee Society scoring system.

 


View larger version (89K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 23. Aseptic loosening of a total knee replacement. (a) Normal immediate post-operative film. (b) 3 years following surgery there is a wide radiolucency under the tibial plate and around the stem at the bone/cement and prosthesis/cement interfaces (arrows).

 


View larger version (129K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 24. Infected total knee replacement. There is extensive bony destruction around the tibial component (arrows).

 


View larger version (102K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 25. Unicompartmental knee replacement. There is lucency at the bone/cement interface of the tibial component which is within normal limits for this particular design.

 


View larger version (90K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 26. Infected unicompartmental knee replacement. (a) The immediate post-operative pictures show normal replacement. (b) 1 month later there is bone destruction under the tibial plate (arrows) and (c) loss of lateral joint space.

 


View larger version (105K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 27. Normal post-operative appearance of a total shoulder replacement. The superior end of the humeral component lies above the superior tip of the greater tuberosity (dotted lines).

 


View larger version (77K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 28. Periprosthetic fracture at the tip of the humeral component (arrow).

 


View larger version (54K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 29. Loose total shoulder replacement. There is subsidence with the head positioned below the superior tip of greater tuberosity (dotted lines). There is a wide lucency seen around the prosthesis (arrows).

 


View larger version (86K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 30. Displacement of humeral component of total shoulder replacement. The component is loose and has rotated approximally 180°.

 


View larger version (73K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 31. Loose glenoid component of a total shoulder replacement. (a) Immediate post-operative film showing normal cemented component without lucency. (b) Film 18 months later shows marked lucency around the component indicating loosening.

 


View larger version (124K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 32. Loose glenoid component of a total shoulder replacement. The humeral head has migrated superiorly due to rotator cuff tear. The glenoid is loose and tilted due to the eccentric contact with the humeral component. Arrows demonstrate direction of rotation.

 


View larger version (84K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 33. Loose hinged total elbow replacement. There is wide lucency around the humeral component (arrows) indicating loosening.

 


View larger version (79K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 34. Loose Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement (STAR). Frontal radiograph showing (a) the normal post-operative appearances and (b) marked lucency around the tibial component (arrows) indicating loosening.

 


View larger version (109K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 35. Total ankle replacement complicated by a fracture of the medial malleolus (arrow).

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING ALL BIR JOURNALS
Copyright © 2003 by the British Institute of Radiology.