Download PDF
Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017; 21(05): 616-629
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606137
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Advanced MR Imaging after Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Clinical Impact

Iman Khodarahmi
1   Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
2   Department of Radiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
,
Jan Fritz
1   Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 October 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Recent metal artifact reduction techniques in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have sparked a new aera in visualization of the peri-implant region and assessment of failing orthopaedic hardware. Modes of failure after total hip arthroplasty can be classified into four broad categories: osseous abnormalities, implant instability and dislocation, implant-associated synovitis, and soft tissue abnormalities. Although MRI is complementary to plain radiography and computed tomography to diagnose the first two categories, it is paramount to investigate the complications related to the synovium and soft tissues. We review the most common modes of failure of hip implants and the MRI characteristics of various causes of pain and dysfunction after hip arthroplasty including osseous stress reaction and fracture, implant loosening, implant instability, polyethylene wear–induced synovitis, adverse reaction to metal debris, infection, hematoma, recurrent hemarthrosis, heterotopic ossification, muscle, tendon, and nerve abnormalities, and periprosthetic neoplasms.

Keywords

hip - arthroplasty - metal artifact reduction - magnetic resonance imaging - pseudotumor
 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ninomiya JT, Dean JC, Incavo SJ. What's new in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (18) 1543-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ninomiya JT, Dean JC, Incavo SJ. What's new in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (18) 1586-1593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Blum A, Gondim-Teixeira P, Gabiache E. , et al; Nancy Association for Prosthesis Exploration (NAPE). Developments in imaging methods used in hip arthroplasty: A diagnostic algorithm. Diagn Interv Imaging 2016; 97 (7-8): 735-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chang CY, Huang AJ, Palmer WE. Radiographic evaluation of hip implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19 (01) 12-20
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hargunani R, Madani H, Khoo M. , et al. Imaging of the painful hip arthroplasty. Can Assoc Radiol J 2016; 67 (04) 345-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Khodarahmi I, Nittka M, Fritz J. Leaps in technology: advanced MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2017; 21: 604-615
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lu W, Pauly KB, Gold GE, Pauly JM, Hargreaves BA. SEMAC: Slice Encoding for Metal Artifact Correction in MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62 (01) 66-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT, Potter HG. MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implants. Radiographics 2014; 34 (04) E106-E132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia BH. , et al. Incidence and future projections of periprosthetic femoral fracture following primary total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of International Registry Data. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2015; 25 (04) 269-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pike J, Davidson D, Garbuz D, Duncan CP, O'Brien PJ, Masri BA. Principles of treatment for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures around well-fixed total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009; 17 (11) 677-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Carli AV, Negus JJ, Haddad FS. Periprosthetic femoral fractures and trying to avoid them: what is the contribution of femoral component design to the increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture?. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (1, Suppl A): 50-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Masri BA, Meek RM, Duncan CP. Periprosthetic fractures evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (420) 80-95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Blum A, Meyer JB, Raymond A. , et al. CT of hip prosthesis: new techniques and new paradigms. Diagn Interv Imaging 2016; 97 (7-8): 725-733
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cooper HJ, Ranawat AS, Potter HG, Foo LF, Koob TW, Ranawat CS. Early reactive synovitis and osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (12) 3278-3285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Walde TA, Weiland DE, Leung SB. , et al. Comparison of CT, MRI, and radiographs in assessing pelvic osteolysis: a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; (437) 138-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Böhler N, Labek G. Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (08) 1329-1332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Roth TD, Maertz NA, Parr JA, Buckwalter KA, Choplin RH. CT of the hip prosthesis: appearance of components, fixation, and complications. Radiographics 2012; 32 (04) 1089-1107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tam HH, Bhaludin B, Rahman F, Weller A, Ejindu V, Parthipun A. SPECT-CT in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Radiol 2014; 69 (01) 82-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Tang H, Yang D, Guo S. , et al. Digital tomosynthesis with metal artifact reduction for assessing cementless hip arthroplasty: a diagnostic cohort study of 48 patients. Skeletal Radiol 2016; 45 (11) 1523-1532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Burge AJ. Total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging of complications unrelated to metal wear. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19 (01) 31-39
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Weiland DE, Walde TA, Leung SB. , et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of periprosthetic acetabular osteolysis: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (04) 713-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Derks R, Westerbeek R. The accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing aseptic loosening of total hip arthroplasty. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1594/ecr2016/C-2177 . Accessed August 29, 2017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Agten CA, Sutter R, Dora C, Pfirrmann CW. MR imaging of soft tissue alterations after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of classic surgical approaches. Eur Radiol 2017; 27 (03) 1312-1321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sheth D, Cafri G, Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Namba RS. Anterior and anterolateral approaches for THA are associated with lower dislocation risk without higher revision risk. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (11) 3401-3408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Maratt JD, Gagnier JJ, Butler PD, Hallstrom BR, Urquhart AG, Roberts KC. No difference in dislocation seen in anterior vs posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (9, Suppl): 127-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Mulcahy H, Chew FS. Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 2, revisions and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199 (03) 570-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pellicci PM, Potter HG, Foo LF, Boettner F. MRI shows biologic restoration of posterior soft tissue repairs after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (04) 940-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Stähelin T, Drittenbass L, Hersche O, Miehlke W, Munzinger U. Failure of capsular enhanced short external rotator repair after total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (420) 199-204
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pellicci PM, Bostrom M, Poss R. Posterior approach to total hip replacement using enhanced posterior soft tissue repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (355) 224-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Malik A, Maheshwari A, Dorr LD. Impingement with total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (08) 1832-1842
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ghelman B, Kepler CK, Lyman S, Della Valle AG. CT outperforms radiography for determination of acetabular cup version after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (09) 2362-2370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Barrack RL, Lavernia C, Ries M, Thornberry R, Tozakoglou E. Virtual reality computer animation of the effect of component position and design on stability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2001; 32 (04) 569-577 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bitar D, Parvizi J. Biological response to prosthetic debris. World J Orthop 2015; 6 (02) 172-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ollivere B, Wimhurst JA, Clark IM, Donell ST. Current concepts in osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (01) 10-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Potter HG, Nestor BJ, Sofka CM, Ho ST, Peters LE, Salvati EA. Magnetic resonance imaging after total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of periprosthetic soft tissue. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A (09) 1947-1954
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Ingham E, Fisher J. Biological reactions to wear debris in total joint replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2000; 214 (01) 21-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Willert HG, Semlitsch M. Tissue reactions to plastic and metallic wear products of joint endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (333) 4-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tuan RS, Lee FY, , T Konttinen Y, Wilkinson JM, Smith RL. ; Implant Wear Symposium 2007 Biologic Work Group. What are the local and systemic biologic reactions and mediators to wear debris, and what host factors determine or modulate the biologic response to wear particles?. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16 (Suppl. 01) S42-S48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Goodman SB, Gibon E, Yao Z. The basic science of periprosthetic osteolysis. Instr Course Lect 2013; 62: 201-206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hayter CL, Koff MF, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance imaging of the postoperative hip. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35 (05) 1013-1025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Chalmers BP, Perry KI, Taunton MJ, Mabry TM, Abdel MP. Diagnosis of adverse local tissue reactions following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2016; 9 (01) 67-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kreibich DN, Moran CG, Delves HT, Owen TD, Pinder IM. Systemic release of cobalt and chromium after uncemented total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78 (01) 18-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Schmalzried TP. Metal-metal bearing surfaces in hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2009; 32 (09) 32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A. , et al. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints. A clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (01) 28-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Wisk LE, Takamura KM. Complications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2011; 42 (02) 207-230 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Campbell P, Ebramzadeh E, Nelson S, Takamura K, De Smet K, Amstutz HC. Histological features of pseudotumor-like tissues from metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (09) 2321-2327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Athanasou NA. The pathobiology and pathology of aseptic implant failure. Bone Joint Res 2016; 5 (05) 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Goodman SB. Wear particles, periprosthetic osteolysis and the immune system. Biomaterials 2007; 28 (34) 5044-5048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hallab NJ, Anderson S, Stafford T, Glant T, Jacobs JJ. Lymphocyte responses in patients with total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (02) 384-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Aroukatos P, Repanti M, Repantis T, Bravou V, Korovessis P. Immunologic adverse reaction associated with low-carbide metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (08) 2135-2142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Lohmann CH, Nuechtern JV, Willert HG, Junk-Jantsch S, Ruether W, Pflueger G. Hypersensitivity reactions in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2007; 30 (09) 760-761
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Lohmann CH, Meyer H, Nuechtern JV. , et al. Periprosthetic tissue metal content but not serum metal content predicts the type of tissue response in failed small-diameter metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (17) 1561-1568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Korovessis P, Petsinis G, Repanti M, Repantis T. Metallosis after contemporary metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (06) 1183-1191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Fritz J, Lurie B, Miller TT. Imaging of hip arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2013; 17 (03) 316-327
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Maloney E, Ha AS, Miller TT. Imaging of adverse reactions to metal debris. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2015; 19 (01) 21-30
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Nawabi DH, Gold S, Lyman S, Fields K, Padgett DE, Potter HG. MRI predicts ALVAL and tissue damage in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (02) 471-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P. , et al. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (07) 847-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Anderson H, Toms AP, Cahir JG, Goodwin RW, Wimhurst J, Nolan JF. Grading the severity of soft tissue changes associated with metal-on-metal hip replacements: reliability of an MR grading system. Skeletal Radiol 2011; 40 (03) 303-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Matthies AK, Skinner JA, Osmani H, Henckel J, Hart AJ. Pseudotumors are common in well-positioned low-wearing metal-on-metal hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (07) 1895-1906
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Hauptfleisch J, Pandit H, Grammatopoulos G, Gill HS, Murray DW, Ostlere S. A MRI classification of periprosthetic soft tissue masses (pseudotumours) associated with metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol 2012; 41 (02) 149-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 van der Weegen W, Brakel K, Horn RJ. , et al. Comparison of different pseudotumor grading systems in a single cohort of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients. Skeletal Radiol 2014; 43 (02) 149-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Nawabi DH, Hayter CL, Su EP. , et al. Magnetic resonance imaging findings in symptomatic versus asymptomatic subjects following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (10) 895-902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Nam D, Barrack RL, Potter HG. What are the advantages and disadvantages of imaging modalities to diagnose wear-related corrosion problems?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (12) 3665-3673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Sutphen SA, MacLaughlin LH, Madsen AA, Russell JH, McShane MA. Prevalence of pseudotumor in patients after metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty evaluated with metal ion analysis and MARS-MRI. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (01) 260-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Chang EY, McAnally JL, Van Horne JR. , et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings?. Radiology 2012; 265 (03) 848-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Kop AM, Keogh C, Swarts E. Proximal component modularity in THA—at what cost? An implant retrieval study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (07) 1885-1894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Kop AM, Swarts E. Corrosion of a hip stem with a modular neck taper junction: a retrieval study of 16 cases. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (07) 1019-1023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Barlow BT, Ortiz PA, Fields KG, Burge AJ, Potter HG, Westrich GH. Magnetic Resonance imaging predicts adverse local tissue reaction histologic severity in modular neck total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2325-2331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF. , et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (11) 2992-2994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Palestro CJ, Love C, Tronco GG, Tomas MB, Rini JN. Combined labeled leukocyte and technetium 99m sulfur colloid bone marrow imaging for diagnosing musculoskeletal infection. Radiographics 2006; 26 (03) 859-870
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Karchevsky M, Schweitzer ME, Morrison WB, Parellada JA. MRI findings of septic arthritis and associated osteomyelitis in adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182 (01) 119-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Kapadia BH, Berg RA, Daley JA, Fritz J, Bhave A, Mont MA. Periprosthetic joint infection. Lancet 2016; 387 (10016): 386-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Plodkowski AJ, Hayter CL, Miller TT, Nguyen JT, Potter HG. Lamellated hyperintense synovitis: potential MR imaging sign of an infected knee arthroplasty. Radiology 2013; 266 (01) 256-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Lee K-J, Goodman SB. Identification of periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthopaed Transl 2015; 3: 21-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Mortazavi SM, Hansen P, Zmistowski B, Kane PW, Restrepo C, Parvizi J. Hematoma following primary total hip arthroplasty: a grave complication. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (03) 498-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Kolber MK, Shukla PA, Kumar A, Zybulewski A, Markowitz T, Silberzweig JE. Endovascular management of recurrent spontaneous hemarthrosis after arthroplasty. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017; 40 (02) 216-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Ohdera T, Tokunaga M, Hiroshima S, Yoshimoto E, Matsuda S. Recurrent hemarthrosis after knee joint arthroplasty: etiology and treatment. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (02) 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Hash II TW, Maderazo AB, Haas SB, Saboeiro GR, Trost DW, Potter HG. Magnetic resonance angiography in the management of recurrent hemarthrosis after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (08) 1357-61.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Back DL, Smith JD, Dalziel RE, Young DA, Shimmin A. Incidence of heterotopic ossification after hip resurfacing. ANZ J Surg 2007; 77 (08) 642-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Hug KT, Alton TB, Gee AO. Classifications in brief: Brooker classification of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (06) 2154-2157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Bricteux S, Beguin L, Fessy MH. Iliopsoas impingement in 12 patients with a total hip arthroplasty [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 2001; 87 (08) 820-825
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Ala Eddine T, Remy F, Chantelot C, Giraud F, Migaud H, Duquennoy A. Anterior iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty: diagnosis and conservative treatment in 9 cases [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 2001; 87 (08) 815-819
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Benad K, Delay C, Putman S, Girard J, Pasquier G, Migaud H. Technique to treat iliopsoas irritation after total hip replacement: thickening of articular hip capsule through an abridged direct anterior approach. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101 (08) 973-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Henderson RA, Lachiewicz PF. Groin pain after replacement of the hip: aetiology, evaluation and treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (02) 145-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Cyteval C, Sarrabère MP, Cottin A. , et al. Iliopsoas impingement on the acetabular component: radiologic and computed tomography findings of a rare hip prosthesis complication in eight cases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27 (02) 183-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Robertson WJ, Gardner MJ, Barker JU, Boraiah S, Lorich DG, Kelly BT. Anatomy and dimensions of the gluteus medius tendon insertion. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (02) 130-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Pfirrmann CW, Notzli HP, Dora C, Hodler J, Zanetti M. Abductor tendons and muscles assessed at MR imaging after total hip arthroplasty in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Radiology 2005; 235 (03) 969-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Laughlin RS, Dyck PJ, Watson JC. , et al. Ipsilateral inflammatory neuropathy after hip surgery. Mayo Clin Proc 2014; 89 (04) 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Su EP. Post-operative neuropathy after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (1, Suppl): 46-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 DeHart MM, Riley Jr LH. Nerve injuries in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1999; 7 (02) 101-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Wolf M, Bäumer P, Pedro M. , et al. Sciatic nerve injury related to hip replacement surgery: imaging detection by MR neurography despite susceptibility artifacts. PLoS One 2014; 9 (02) e89154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Ahlawat S, Belzberg A, Fritz J. High resolution metal artifact reduction MR neurography of the lumbosacral plexus in patients with metallic implants. Paper presented at: 102nd Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; 2016 ; Chicago, IL
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Visuri T, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P. Malignant tumors at the site of total hip prosthesis. Analytic review of 46 cases. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (03) 311-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar