eMedicine Specialties > Radiology > Musculoskeletal

Hip Replacement

Jon A Jacobson, MD, Professor, Director, Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center

Updated: May 1, 2008

Introduction

Background

Arthroplasty of the hip may be categorized as a total hip arthroplasty or a hemiarthroplasty. In a total hip arthroplasty, the articular surfaces of both the acetabulum and femur are replaced. This involves either replacement of the femoral head and neck (conventional total hip arthroplasty) (see Images 1-7) or replacement of the surface of the femoral head (resurfacing total hip arthroplasty) (see Image 8); both procedures also replace the acetabulum. 

In contrast to a total hip arthroplasty, a hemiarthroplasty involves replacement of the articular surface of the femoral head without surgical alteration to the acetabular articular surface. This may involve replacement of the femoral head and neck (unipolar hemiarthroplasty) (see Images 9-10), replacement of the femoral head and neck with an additional acetabular cup that is not attached to the pelvis (bipolar hemiarthroplasty) (see Images 11-12), or replacement of the surface of the femoral head (resurfacing hemiarthroplasty) (see Image 35). With a bipolar hemiarthroplasty, there is normal motion between the femoral head and acetabular cup, and between the acetabular cup and native acetabulum (see Image 13). 

The hip joint may be replaced with a variety of materials, including metal, polyethylene, and ceramic. There are also various methods of arthroplasty fixation, such as polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement and screw fixation, although cementless press fit and porous ingrowth arthroplasties may also be used. Arthroplasty materials and fixation are discussed in the Anatomy section, below. 

Imaging of a hip arthroplasty and its complications primarily relies on the information that is obtained from routine radiography, although there are specific roles for other imaging techniques, such as arthrography, computed tomography (CT) scanning, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography, and nuclear medicine. 

For excellent patient education resources, visit eMedicine's Arthritis Center and Foot, Ankle, Knee, and Hip Center. Also, see eMedicine's patient education article Total Hip Replacement.

Related eMedicine topics:
Acetabulum Fractures
Fractures, Hip
Osteonecrosis, Hip 

Related Medscape topics:
Resource Center Fracture
Resource Center Joint Disorders
Resource Center Rheumatoid Arthritis
CME Glucosamine May Be No Better Than Placebo for Hip Osteoarthritis
CME/CE New Guidelines Issued for Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

Pathophysiology

Common indications for a total hip arthroplasty include conditions that affect both the articular surfaces of the acetabulum and femur, such as osteoarthritis. A resurfacing total hip arthroplasty is considered in younger patients with osteoarthritis and good bone stock (ie, no osteopenia or excessive bone loss). A hemiarthroplasty is commonly used when avascular necrosis of the femoral head is present, or if there is a displaced femoral neck fracture with significant risk of developing avascular necrosis, without hip joint osteoarthritis. 

Complications of hip arthroplasty include implant fracture, dislocation, mechanical loosening, infection, heterotopic bone formation, and particle disease (also termed aggressive granulomatosis, which represents a foreign-body reaction to implant debris that causes focal osteolysis).¹

Related eMedicine topics:
Acetabulum Fractures 
Avascular Necrosis, Femoral Head
Heterotopic Ossification 
Osteoarthritis
Osteonecrosis, Hip

Related Medscape topic:
Specialty Site Orthopaedics

Frequency

United States

More than 120,000 total hip arthroplasties are performed annually.²

International

Worldwide, approximately 800,000 total hip arthroplasties are performed annually.²

Mortality/Morbidity

A 3% prevalence of prosthetic loosening is observed at 11 years after hip replacement, and there is a 1% prevalence of prosthetic infection.

Anatomy

Arthroplasty Components

Acetabulum components include the following:

• Polyethylene (with or without metal backing) (see Images 1-4 and 11-13)
• Cobalt-chromium metal (see Image 5)
• Ceramic (see Images 6-7).

• Metal femoral stem (cobalt-chromium or titanium alloy) (see Images 1-13)
• Metal (see Image 5) or ceramic (see Images 6-7) femoral head. 

Preferred Examination

Radiography is the primary imaging method for the evaluation of hip arthroplasties (See Radiograph, below).

Limitations of Techniques

Specific issues exist that are related to the choice of the hip arthroplasty material that is used and to the type of the arthroplasty itself.

The most common scenario for a replaced femoral head and acetabular articulation in a total hip arthroplasty is to use a cobalt-chromium alloy metal femoral head and a polyethylene cup (with metal backing) articulation. A complication related to this combination is polyethylene wear and subsequent inflammation and osteolysis from particle disease. In order to reduce component wear, ceramic femoral heads have also been used with a polyethylene acetabular cup, as well as a combination of a ceramic head and a ceramic cup. Although not exclusive to ceramic-on-ceramic articulation, patients have complained of "squeaking" during ambulation.³ Ceramic head components may also fail or fragment. 

There has been a renewed interested in metal-on-metal articulations with the use of a larger femoral head component, which has the advantage of a lower frequency of hip dislocations. The metal-on-metal articulation also has less wear compared with that of polyethylene components, and the particles are smaller and associated with less inflammation. Of concern, however, are reports that chromium and cobalt metal ions have been found in the blood and urine after metal-on-metal arthroplasties. Although a study by Miller et al quoted an increased incidence of leukemia from such procedures, there were no statistical differences between the metal-on-metal and the metal-on-polyethylene articulations.⁴

With regard to the type of arthroplasty, resurfacing metal-on-metal arthroplasties have been considered for younger patients who have osteoarthritis and normal proximal femur bone quality.⁵ The advantage of this surgery is that the femoral neck is preserved, which may be advantageous to the patient, who may later need a conventional arthroplasty. Patient selection is key to the success of resurfacing arthroplasties. Thinning of the femoral neck has been described after this type of surgery (possibly related to stress shielding), although this finding is not associated with failure.⁵ The incidence of femoral neck fracture after hip resurfacing is approximately 1.25%.⁵

Differential Diagnoses

Other Problems to Be Considered

Acetabulum Fractures
Avascular Necrosis, Femoral Head
Femoral Neck, Fractures
Fractures, Hip
Immune Response to Implants
Infection
Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures
Osteoarthritis
Osteonecrosis, Hip
Total Joint Replacement Rehabilitation

Radiography

Findings

Postoperative Assessment

Radiographs are essential for the evaluation of hip arthroplasties. It is important that the entire prosthesis is included on 2 orthogonal radiographs of acceptable technique. When evaluating the acetabular component on the frontal view, there is normally 30-50° of lateral inclination (see Image 17).⁶ On a cross-table (Manfredi) or true lateral radiograph, there is normally 5-25° of anteversion (see Images 18-19).⁶  The femoral component should be assessed for symmetry relative to the contralateral normal hip, when present. In the vertical direction, the center of the femoral head is assessed relative to the ischial tuberosities and the greater trochanter (see Image 20).⁶  In the horizontal direction, the center of the femoral head is assessed relative to the lateral margin of the acetabular tear drop (see Image 21).⁶

Normal Radiographic Findings

With a cemented prosthesis, normal radiographic findings include a lucency that is less than 2 mm thick at the bone-cement interface; the lucency represents fibrous tissue and is outlined by a thin, sclerotic demarcation line (see Image 22).⁷  A lucency at the metal-cement interface of a cemented arthroplasty and one at the metal-bone interface of a cementless arthroplasty are typically related to surgical technique. These lucencies are normal if they are stable over time, but they generally should be less than 2 mm thick (see Image 23). Lucencies should be followed up on radiographs because progression can indicate loosening. 

Another normal finding at porous ingrowth surfaces is the presence of focal sclerosis or spot welds (see Image 15).⁷  Bone resorption may also be seen beneath the femoral flange with a cementless femoral component and with a cemented femoral component, in which a lucency may be up to 4 mm thick (see Image 24). Focal osteopenia of the trochanteric regions due to stress shielding (diverted stress causes bone resorption) is considered a normal finding when the femoral component is secure (see Images 25-26). 

As an isolated finding, sclerosis at the tip of a cementless femoral component, or pedestal formation, is of unclear significance (see Image 27). A radiopaque cement restrictor or centralizer may be used with cemented femoral components (see Image 14), and cables or wires may be used after a trochanteric osteotomy or after a total hip arthroplasty revision (see Image 16). 

Wire fractures occur in up to 33% of hips and are usually insignificant without greater  trochanteric displacement.⁸  However, fractured wires may cause an adjacent soft-tissue abnormality such as bursitis. A patient with more than 2 cm of trochanteric displacement may need a repeat operation. The normal radiographic findings described above can also be applied to other imaging modalities, such as CT scanning and MRI.  

Early Complications

Early complications include improper component placement, dislocation, and cement extrusion. Increased acetabular cup inclination and abnormal version—as well as a femoral component that is too long (causing muscle spasm)—may predispose the hip to a dislocation between the acetabulum and the femoral head (see Image 28). Most such dislocations occur in the immediate postoperative period. Varus angulation between the femoral stem and femoral diaphysis predisposes to femoral fracture at the femoral stem tip (see Image 29). Cement extrusion is typically asymptomatic (see Image 30).

Late Complications

Late complications include dislocation, hardware failure, fracture, heterotopic ossification, prosthetic loosening, infection, and particle disease. Causes of dislocation have been discussed above (Early Complications).

Hardware failure may consist of metal (see Image 31), ceramic (see Image 32), or polyethylene (see Image 33) component fracture and displacement. Osseous fractures may involve the greater trochanter (see Image 34), femoral neck (see Image 35), acetabulum (see Images 36-37), and femoral diaphysis; these fractures may be related to trauma, stress shielding (see Images 25-26), or component loosening.²⁰  

Heterotopic ossification is usually asymptomatic, but it is seen in up to 39% of total hip arthroplasties⁸  and may begin by 2-3 weeks after surgery, with possible ankylosis by 12 weeks (see Images 38-39). 

Brooker and Bowerman classified heterotopic ossification as the following⁸ :

Class 1 – Islands of bone in soft tissues
Class 2 – >1 cm gap in heterotopic ossification between the femur and pelvis
Class 3 – <1 cm gap
Class 4 – Bony ankylosis

Loosening

With a cemented component, loosening is suggested by the presence of component migration (see Images 40-41) or tilt (see Images 42-44) or a new cement fracture (see Image 45). With a cementless component, a femoral component subsidence that is >10 mm or an increased number of metal beads that are displaced from the surface of a bone ingrowth prosthesis over time (bead shedding) also indicates abnormal component motion and loosening (see Image 46).

A finding that is common to all types of component fixation is a >2 mm or progressive periprosthetic lucency (see Images 47-49), although this may be due to coexisting infection or particle disease (see discussion below). The location of periprosthetic lucencies can be described by their zones, which are based on anteroposterior and lateral hip radiographs. On an anteroposterior radiograph, the femoral zones are numbered 1-7, and the acetabular zones are referred to as I, II, and III (see Image 50). On a lateral hip radiograph, additional femoral zones are numbered from 8-14 (see Image 51).

Infection and particle disease

The identification of a lucency around a prosthesis (>2 mm or increasing lucencies) raises the clinical concern for an infection (see Image 52) or particle disease (also called aggressive granulomatosis) (see Images 53-54), with possible coexisting component loosening.^6,8 Infection, particle disease, and isolated mechanical loosening may appear similarly on radiographs. However, a diffuse lucency suggests mechanical loosening or infection; multifocal lucencies can suggest particle disease or infection. With mechanical loosening, a diffuse lucency around the femoral component can be seen with a pistoning effect (see Image 41), or focal lucencies may be seen at the proximal and/or distal aspects from a toggling effect (see Image 48). 

Evidence for polyethylene wear, which appears as an asymmetric position of the femoral head within the acetabular cup, is an important finding that also suggests particle disease (see Image 53). None of the above radiographic findings are specific for infection, and a normal-appearing radiograph does not exclude infection⁹ ; therefore, hip aspiration is indicated when excluding infection from the differential diagnosis. 

Arthrography

Arthrography is primarily used to document intra-articular needle placement during fluoroscopic arthrocentesis to exclude infection. Dedicated arthrography can also be performed to evaluate prosthetic loosening. Normally, intra-articular contrast medium extends from the rim of the acetabular cup to the intertrochanteric line (see Image 55); thus, intra-articular contrast extension at the bone-cement interface can indicate component loosening (see Image 56).⁷  However, lack of abnormal contrast extension does not exclude component loosening. Arthrography has also been shown to be unreliable in the evaluation of a noncemented hip arthroplasty. 

When filling of the bursae or cavities around the hip occurs during arthrography, irregularity of the margins may indicate infection.¹⁰  Although the iliopsoas bursa may communicate with the hip joint in approximately 10% of patients (see Images 57-58), in a series of painful hip arthroplasties, Berquist et al reported that contrast filling of the trochanteric bursa was the most common finding (see Image 59).¹⁰  

Ultrasonography should be considered before the performance of a fluoroscopic aspiration of a hip joint in order to exclude infection and to screen for any adjacent and overlying soft-tissue abscesses; needle placement at fluoroscopy could theoretically be passed through an unsuspected soft-tissue abscess, thus contaminating a sterile joint.

Degree of Confidence

Radiography is reliable in the diagnosis of a dislocation, an osseous fracture, and hardware failure. Because abnormal lucencies around a prosthesis that are caused by an infection may appear similar to that which is seen with prosthetic loosening or particle disease, arthrocentesis is typically used to exclude a diagnosis of infection.

False Positives/Negatives

Both radiography and arthrography would not detect a soft-tissue infection; thus, a normal-appearing radiograph does not exclude the presence of an infection. Arthrography is not reliable in the evaluation of a noncemented hip arthroplasty. In addition, a normal arthrogram does not exclude the possibility of a loosening prosthesis.

Computed Tomography

Findings

Although the initial evaluation of a hip arthroplasty should begin with radiography, there is a definite role for CT evaluation in several situations. When there is concern about infection, CT scanning is complementary to radiography in that CT scans can show soft-tissue abscesses (see Image 60). A significant role for CT scanning is in the evaluation of osteolysis that is related to particle disease (see Image 54). Although radiography is effective in identifying large, abnormal periprosthetic lucencies, CT scans better characterize and show the extent of the osteolysis.¹¹ With multiplanar reformation in multiple imaging planes, CT scans also display the location of the osteolysis and assess the status of the adjacent normal bone before surgery. Lastly, CT scans can show the location of fragmented or failed arthroplasty components and periprosthetic fractures (see Image 37), as well as assess the acetabular component version.

To reduce metal artifacts when imaging a hip prosthesis with CT scanning, it is important to optimize various technical parameters (see Image 7). The milliamperes (mAs) are increased (350-450 mAs in adults; up to 600 mAs if there are bilateral hip arthroplasties), but one must also take the radiation dose into consideration, especially if one is imaging children. Additional methods to reduce artifacts include the use of lower pitch settings (to reduce cone beam artifacts with multichannel scanners), narrow detector element collimation, increased peak killivoltage (kVp) (140 kVp), and a smoother image reconstruction algorithm (eg, use of a standard soft-tissue filter vs a bone filter).¹² The original data are reconstructed using 1.0-1.5–mm thick slices with a 50% overlap, and then multiplanar reformations are created using 1.5-2–mm thick slices in the coronal and sagittal planes. 

Degree of Confidence

As a complementary imaging study to radiography, CT scanning has a role in the evaluation of soft-tissue abnormalities and osteolysis. Artifacts can be reduced with optimized technical parameters.

False Positives/Negatives

Soft-tissue abnormalities immediately adjacent to a metal prosthesis may not be seen on CT scans due to the presence of artifacts, which can potentially cause a false-negative examination result; however, this depends on the quality of the image and the technician's success in reducing such artifacts.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Findings

MRI has some limitations due to the artifacts produced by the prosthesis that may obscure the adjacent soft tissue and any bone abnormalities. However, the role of MRI in the evaluation of hip arthroplasty has been investigated.² Modifications to standard MRI sequences can improve imaging of a hip arthroplasty, including using thin sections or reducing the voxel size, increasing the frequency-encoding gradient strength, using spin-echo or fast spin-echo (FSE) sequences rather than gradient echo, using short TI inversion recovery (STIR) rather than spectral fat saturation, using broader band width, and using lower magnetic field strength, as well as imaging of the prosthesis with its long axis longitudinal to the static magnetic field.^2,13  

In addition, because artifacts are most pronounced in the frequency-encoding direction, it is important to place the frequency-encoding gradient in a direction that is away from suspected pathology. Similar to CT scanning, MRI may show soft-tissue abnormalities, such as abscesses and bursae (see Images 61-62), as well as osseous abnormalities, such as osteolysis from particle disease. Component loosening appears as periprosthetic low T1 and high T2 signals, whereas particle disease will show low T1 and low to intermediate T2 signals.¹³

Degree of Confidence

Similar to CT scanning, artifacts that are produced by a prosthesis on MRI may obscure any adjacent soft-tissue and bone abnormalities. However, these artifacts can be reduced by optimizing the MRI's technical parameters. Radiography remains an important imaging method to evaluate hip arthroplasty.

False Positives/Negatives

Artifacts that are produced by a prosthesis may obscure the immediate adjacent soft tissue and any bone abnormalities, resulting in a false-negative MRI examination.

Ultrasonography

Findings

Unlike CT scanning or MRI, with ultrasonography, the artifacts produced by metal occur deep to the prosthesis; therefore, periprosthetic fluid collections can be visualized with this modality. The plane of the ultrasound beam or the long axis of the transducer is positioned along the long axis of the femoral neck of the prosthesis. Often, a lower frequency transducer is needed to optimize the image resolution (<10 MHz); a curvilinear transducer or a linear transducer with a trapezoidal function is helpful to increase the field of view. The superficial contours of the arthroplasty and the adjacent acetabulum and femur allow identification, and the metal components will appear hyperechoic with posterior reverberation artifacts (see Image 63). The native bone of the acetabulum and femur will also appear hyperechoic but with posterior acoustic shadowing (see Image 63). 

A normal hip arthroplasty may show minimal hypoechoic tissue along the femoral neck component or no tissue at all.¹⁴ Abnormal fluid will appear anechoic or hypoechoic over the femoral neck component (see Images 64-65). Synovitis may also appear hypoechoic (see Image 66), but this condition is more variable in echotexture, with possible flow on color or power Doppler imaging.¹⁴ It is important to scan around the entire hip region to adequately assess for the possible presence of a soft-tissue fluid collection or bursae (see Images 67-68); in addition, imaging deep to the skin incision is very important as fluid collections often occur here. 

The patient may indicate a focal area of symptoms to guide scanning. Although the findings of infection are often nonspecific, extensive fluid collection with a pseudocapsule-to-bone distance of >3.2 mm, especially if it extends beyond the femoral neck area and there is hyperemia, is often a clue that infection may exist (see Image 69).¹⁵ In a patient who has a large body habitus, the ultrasonographic resolution decreases, and anechoic fluid may appear hypoechoic.¹⁴  

Ultrasonography may be used in conjunction with fluoroscopy in the setting of infection to evaluate for soft-tissue abscesses and other extra-articular fluid collections.¹⁵ It is important to exclude an extra-articular fluid collection before fluoroscopic arthrocentesis because there is a theoretical risk of seeding a sterile joint by passing a needle through an overlying soft-tissue abscess. Ultrasonography can also be used to guide percutaneous needle aspiration of a joint or soft-tissue abscess, as well as guide injection or aspiration of a bursa. Ultrasound-guided injection of anesthetic agents and steroids deep to the iliopsoas tendon can be completed in the case of an iliopsoas tendon impingement from an acetabular cup (see Image 70).¹⁶

Another advantage of ultrasonography is the ability to dynamically assess the hip joint and the adjacent structures; this modality can evaluate any snapping or symptomatic condition that requires joint movement or unusual positioning.

Degree of Confidence

Significant joint effusions or extra-articular fluid collections can be identified easily with ultrasonography. In a patient with a large body habitus, it may be difficult to visualize or exclude a small joint effusion. In this setting, percutaneous joint aspiration is needed if the clinical suspicion for infection is high, preferably with the use of fluoroscopic guidance so that intra-articular needle placement can be confirmed with an iodinated contrast medium.

False Positives/Negatives

Infected and sterile joint effusions or soft-tissue fluid collections may appear similar on ultrasonograms. Aspiration is required in this setting. In a patient with a large body habitus, it may be difficult to visualize a small joint effusion and differentiate it from normal postoperative changes. Consider performing an arthrocentesis if the index of suspicion for infection is high.

False-negative and false-positive arthrocentesis results for infection have been described. One study found false-negative aspirations in 11 of 19 infected arthroplasties.⁷ Similarly, false-positive aspirations have been described in up to 21% of arthroplasties. Both clinical and radiographic evidence for infection can help to differentiate true-positive from false-positive cases; the type and quantity of an organism found in aspirates has not been determined to be helpful.⁷

Nuclear Imaging

Findings

Nuclear medicine studies have also been used to diagnose prosthetic loosening or infection of hip arthroplasties. A cemented component may normally demonstrate radionuclide uptake on a bone scan within 1-2 years (see Images 71-72). Increased tracer uptake after this period can indicate infection, prosthetic loosening (see Image 73), or fracture (see Image 74); the sensitivities range from 50-100%.⁷  With a cementless component, increased radionuclide uptake on a bone scan may persist secondary to bone ingrowth.⁴   In general, a negative bone scan suggests infection or component loosening is unlikely.   

Tracer uptake on a gallium scan that correlates with bone scan findings indicates infection with few false-positive results. Labeled white blood cell scans are more specific than gallium scans, but false-negative results are possible in these cases in the presence of chronic infection. To exclude cellulitis, the radionuclide uptake on labeled white blood cell scans should correspond to the bone scan findings; to exclude normal bone marrow, white blood cell scan uptake should not correspond to sulfur colloid uptake.

Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) scanning has a variable accuracy in the diagnosis of infection, ranging from 43-78%.⁴

Degree of Confidence

Tracer uptake on a bone scan indicates loosening of a prosthesis or infection with a 50-100% sensitivity. Concordant uptake on a bone scan and gallium or labeled white blood cell scan localizes the abnormality to the bone. Correlation with radiographs is important. Percutaneous aspiration is often required to confirm the presence of an infection.

False Positives/Negatives

The combination of gallium with a bone scan reduces false-positive results. Chronic infection, however, may produce false-negative results with labeled white blood cells.

Intervention

Aspiration

Aspiration of the hip joint is often required to exclude the presence of a joint infection. This can be accomplished with either fluoroscopic or ultrasonographic guidance. The benefit of fluoroscopic guidance is the ability to confirm intra-articular needle placement with the use of an iodinated contrast medium. The benefit of ultrasonographic guidance is the portability and accessibility of this modality. However, ultrasonography may be technically difficult to perform in patients with a large body habitus because both the fluid and needle may be difficult to identify. The accuracy of a preoperative hip joint aspiration after arthroplasty in the diagnosis of infection has been reported to be as high as 96%.¹⁷

A complete assessment of a joint infection optimally utilizes both ultrasonography and fluoroscopy. Ultrasonography may be performed initially to screen for the presence of soft-tissue abscesses, bursae, and joint fluid. If a large joint effusion is identified, immediate ultrasonographic guidance can be used for percutaneous aspiration. If no joint effusion is present and there is significant concern about an infection, joint aspiration may proceed with either ultrasonography or fluoroscopy. However, heterotopic ossification around a hip arthroplasty may make ultrasound-guided aspiration difficult. 

Regardless of the imaging method that is used to guide percutaneous aspiration, it is important to consider using ultrasonography to evaluate the surrounding soft tissues. Extra-articular fluid collections would not be identified with the sole use of fluoroscopy. Additionally, there is the theoretical risk of passing a needle through a soft-tissue abscess, thereby seeding a sterile joint during percutaneous aspiration. Ultrasonography thus has a role in the evaluation for a soft-tissue abscess or fluid collection.

Ultrasound-Guided Joint Aspiration

With ultrasound-guided aspiration, the long axis of the transducer and needle are in the plane of the femoral neck or the oblique sagittal plane. Once the fluid is identified, the skin is marked at the inferior end of the transducer with an "X" (to indicate the puncture site), and a line is placed at the superior aspect (to indicate the plane of the transducer). The transducer is then removed and the skin is cleansed. The use of a sterile probe cover is optimal to avoid infection. The transducer is returned and an 18- or 20-gauge spinal needle with a stylet is placed approximately 1-2 cm in the soft tissues, directed from inferior to superior. 

It is important to identify the needle before advancing; the needle should only be advanced if the entire needle, including the tip, is visualized on the ultrasound image. Once this occurs, the needle angle can be adjusted as the needle is advanced superiorly and posteriorly to the femoral neck. As the needle makes contact with the prosthesis, the metal will feel like an extremely hard and smooth object. If no fluid can be aspirated, the needle can be repositioned along other areas of the femoral neck. Be aware that a hypoechoic synovitis may appear similar to a complex joint fluid on ultrasonograms.

Fluoroscopy-Guided Joint Aspiration

After the femoral artery is palpated and its course marked on the skin surface, the skin directly over the femoral neck is marked. An 18- or 20-gauge spinal needle with a stylet is then advanced perpendicular to the skin from anterior to posterior and makes contact with the femoral neck. This is an advantage over the oblique approach in which the needle is advanced superiorly and medially from the greater trochanteric region, where the needle may course anterior or posterior to the femoral neck. 

If the femoral artery is in close proximity to the needle puncture site, the patient may be rolled away from the ipsilateral hip. With this maneuver, the femoral artery, which is located anteriorly, moves medially away from the hip; then, without the need for an oblique needle course, the needle can still be directly advanced down to the femoral neck perpendicular to the skin surface. Once the needle makes contact with the femoral neck of the prosthesis, aspiration is attempted. If no fluid is aspirated, repositioning of the needle tip along the femoral neck may be successful. At the completion of the aspiration, an iodinated contrast medium is injected to confirm the needle location. It is important to visualize contrast medium along the femoral neck to indicate the needle's intra-articular placement.

Other Interventional Studies

In addition to hip joint aspiration, any soft-tissue fluid collection may be aspirated or injected. Ultrasound-guided injection around the iliopsoas tendon and acetabular cup has been used to treat tendon impingement.¹⁸

Medicolegal Pitfalls

• It is important to note that no single imaging method can accurately diagnose or exclude infection in all cases. This is why percutaneous aspiration of a hip joint, regardless of imaging guidance, is critical. Also, consider using ultrasonography to evaluate the surrounding soft tissues for the presence of an abscess.

Related Medscape topic:
Resource Center Medical Malpractice and Legal Issues

Multimedia

Media file 1: Image from a patient who had a normal, hybrid-type total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the femoral (metal, cemented) and acetabular (polyethylene cup with metal backing, cementless) components. (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 2: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows the femoral (metal, press fit, cementless) and acetabular (polyethylene cup with metal backing, screw fixation) components. (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 3: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows the femoral (metal, cemented) and the acetabular (polyethylene, cemented [yellow arrow]) components. (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 4: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the femoral (ceramic head [yellow arrow], metal stem, cementless, porous) and acetabular (polyethylene cup, metal backing, cementless, porous) components. Note the extensive reaming that is deep to the acetabular cup, creating a lucency of the rim fit of the acetabular component. (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 5: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows the femoral (metal head and stem, cemented) and acetabular (metal, cementless) components. Note the large metal femoral head articulating with the metal acetabular cup (arrows). (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 6: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows the femoral (ceramic head [arrow], metal stem, cementless, cable) and acetabular (ceramic cup, metal backing, cementless) components. Note the density of the ceramic head, which is less dense than metal. (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 7: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This coronal computed tomography reformatted image shows the femoral (ceramic head [right yellow arrow], metal stem, cementless, cable) and acetabular (ceramic cup [top yellow arrow], metal backing, cementless) components. (See Images 1-7.)

Media file 8: Image from a patient who had a normal resurfacing total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the femoral (metal head and stem) and acetabulum components (metal, cementless). Note the large femoral head and the preserved femoral neck.

Media file 9: Image from a patient who had a normal unipolar hemiarthroplasty (same patient in Images 9 and 10). This anteroposterior radiograph shows the femoral component (metal, cementless) and the normal, native acetabulum.

Media file 10: Image from a patient who had a normal unipolar hemiarthroplasty (same patient in Images 9 and 10). This frog-leg radiograph shows the femoral component of the unipolar hemiarthroplasty (metal, cementless). Note the normal sclerotic bone of the acetabulum (which indicates no surgical reaming) and the normal lucent hyaline cartilage between the acetabulum and the femoral head (arrow).

Media file 11: Image from a patient who had a normal bipolar hemiarthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the femoral (metal head and stem, cemented) and acetabular components (polyethylene cup, metal backing). Note the normal appearance of the acetabulum without reaming (arrow) and the lucency between the acetabulum and cup, which represents the normal acetabular articular cartilage.

Media file 12: Image from a patient who had a normal bipolar hemiarthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the femoral (metal head and stem, cemented) and acetabular components (polyethylene cup, metal backing). Note the angle between the edge of the acetabular cup and the horizontal in comparison to Image 13.

Media file 13: Image from a patient who had a normal bipolar hemiarthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows the femoral (metal head and stem, cemented) and acetabular components (polyethylene cup, metal backing). Note the angle between the edge of the acetabular cup and the horizontal in comparison to Figure 12. The motion between the acetabular cup and the native acetabulum is normal.

Media file 14: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the cement restrictor or centralizer (arrow) distal to the cemented femoral stem.

Media file 15: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows "spot welds" (arrows) that indicate bone ingrowth at the cementless femoral stem.

Media file 16: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows cables (arrow) at the site of a trochanteric osteotomy.

Media file 17: Illustration of the lateral inclination of an acetabular component (adapted from Manaster BJ. Radiographics. 1996;16(3):648.). ⁶ The angle between the rim of the acetabular cup and the ischial tuberosities should normally be from 30-50º.

Media file 18: Illustration of an anteversion of an acetabular component (adapted from Manaster BJ. Radiographics. 1996;16(3):649.). ⁶ Normal anteversion of the acetabular cup is 5-25º on a lateral hip radiograph.

Media file 19: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This true lateral radiograph shows the normal degree of acetabular component anteversion (dashed line). Courtesy of Dr JC Hodge, New York.

Media file 20: Illustration of the vertical assessment of a femoral component (adapted from Manaster BJ. Radiographics. 1996;16(3):648.). ⁶ The distance from the center of each femoral head to the lines that intersect the ischial tuberosities (between lines A and C) and to the greater trochanters (between lines B and C) should be symmetric.

Media file 21: Illustration of the horizontal assessment of a femoral component (adapted from Manaster BJ. Radiographics. 1996;16(3):648.). ⁶ A line drawn from the center of each femoral head to the adjacent acetabular tear drop (which represents the acetabular margin of the medial hip joint space) should be symmetric.

Media file 22: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a <2 mm-thick normal periprosthetic lucency (arrow) at the bone-cement interface, which is demarcated by a thin, sclerotic line (ie, demarcation line).

Media file 23: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. The lucency about the femoral stem is demarcated by a sclerotic line (arrows) that measures <2 mm thick. The lucency was stable over time.

Media file 24: Image from an asymptomatic patient who had bone resorption under the femoral flange (arrow) that measured 4 mm thick.

Media file 25: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty and stress shielding. This anteroposterior radiograph shows localized osteopenia (arrow) of the greater trochanter as a result of diverted mechanical stress from the secure arthroplasty.

Media file 26: Image of a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty and stress shielding. This frog-leg radiograph shows focal osteopenia involving both the lesser and greater trochanteric regions (arrows) as a result of diverted stress.

Media file 27: Image of pedestal formation from a patient who had a cementless total hip arthroplasty. This radiograph of the distal femoral stem shows an adjacent sclerosis.

Media file 28: Image from a patient who had a cementless total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows an acute posterosuperior dislocation of the femoral head from the acetabulum.

Media file 29: Image from a patient who had a cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a varus angulation between the femoral stem and the femoral shaft (black line) that predisposed the bone to stress and fracture at the lateral femoral cortex (arrow).

Media file 30: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows medial extrusion (arrow) of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement.

Media file 31: Image from a patient who had a prosthesis failure from a cemented unipolar hemiarthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a femoral stem fracture (arrow).

Media file 32: Image from a patient who had a prosthesis failure from a total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a fractured and displaced ceramic femoral head (arrow). The femoral neck is in direct contact with the superolateral aspect of the polyethylene acetabular liner. Note the fracture of an acetabular screw and the ceramic fragments within the joint.

Media file 33: Image from a patient who had a prosthesis failure from a total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows the fragmented and displaced acetabular component. The lucent polyethylene liner has rotated and appears as an oval lucency that projects over the femoral neck (open arrow), whereas the associated metal ring (arrow) is disrupted and displaced. The femoral head is protruding into the native acetabulum.

Media file 34: Image from a patient who had a prosthesis failure from a total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows a displaced greater trochanteric fracture (arrow).

Media file 35: Image from a patient who had a resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows a displaced osseous femoral neck fracture (arrows) adjacent to the hip arthroplasty.

Media file 36: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows an acetabular fracture (arrow). Note the abnormal anteversion and lateral rotation of the acetabular component.

Media file 37: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This axial computed tomography scan shows an acetabular fracture (arrow).

Media file 38: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows an ill-defined and nonbridging early heterotopic ossification.

Media file 39: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a well-defined, late heterotopic ossification (arrow) with continuous cortical bone and visualized trabeculae.

Media file 40: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with femoral subsidence. This anteroposterior radiograph shows an abnormal lucency (arrow) distal to the femoral stem.

Media file 41: Follow-up image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with femoral subsidence (same patient as in Image 40). This anteroposterior radiograph shows an interval subsidence of the femoral component (arrow).

Media file 42: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with abnormal prosthesis motion. This anteroposterior radiograph shows the cemented acetabular cup has rotated medially, resulting in an abnormal surrounding lucency, which indicates loosening. The femoral head is in contact with the ilium.

Media file 43: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with abnormal prosthesis motion. This anteroposterior radiograph shows abnormal lucencies at the metal-cement and cement-bone interfaces of the acetabular component and the presence of acetabular protrusion.

Media file 44: Follow-up image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with abnormal prosthesis motion (same patient as in Image 43). This anteroposterior radiograph shows an interval vertical rotation of the acetabular cup and shows fracture of the acetabular screws indicating component loosening.

Media file 45: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows a fracture of the cement (arrow) distal to the femoral stem. Note the angulation of the femoral diaphysis, which is related to abnormal stress and has an increased risk of fracture.

Media file 46: Image from a patient who had a cementless total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows bead shedding (top, small arrow) from the porous ingrowth surface of the femoral component (bottom, large arrow).

Media file 47: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with a subsequent loose femoral component. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a >2 mm lucency at the metal-cement interface (arrows).

Media file 48: Image from a patient who had a bipolar hemiarthroplasty with a subsequent loose femoral component. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a >2 mm lucency at the proximal femoral component (open arrow), which indicates loosening. Note the normal native acetabulum (arrow); the adjacent lucency between the acetabulum and the acetabular cup represents the acetabular hyaline cartilage, which is characteristic of a bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Slight superomedial narrowing between the acetabular cup and the native acetabulum indicates cartilage thinning.

Media file 49: Image from a patient who had a cementless total hip arthroplasty with a subsequent loose femoral component. This anteroposterior radiograph shows a >2 mm lucency (arrow) around the femoral stem due to an abnormal distal toggling motion. Note the presence of sclerosis at the femoral stem tip, which is termed pedestal formation.

Media file 50: This anteroposterior radiograph shows the numbered femoral and acetabular zones that are used to describe the location of a periprosthetic lucency.

Media file 51: This lateral hip radiograph shows the additional numbered femoral zones that are used to describe the location of a periprosthetic lucency.

Media file 52: Image from a patient who had an infection following a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This frog-leg radiograph shows an abnormal lucency (arrows) at the cement-prosthesis interface.

Media file 53: Image from a patient who had particle disease following a bipolar hemiarthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph shows an abnormal lucency (arrows) that surrounds the acetabular component. Note the asymmetric position of the femoral head (blue dashed circle), which indicates the underlying polyethylene wear of the acetabular component.

Media file 54: Image from a patient who had particle disease following a bipolar hemiarthroplasty (same patient as in Image 53). This axial computed tomography scan (without intravenous contrast) shows destruction of the acetabulum (arrow). The bone has been replaced with soft tissue from aggressive granulomatosis.

Media file 55: Hip arthrogram from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph (after intra-articular injection of iodinated contrast medium) shows filling of the joint from the acetabular rim to the intertrochanteric line (arrows). The opacity that is seen around the acetabular component is cement.

Media file 56: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty with subsequent loosening of the prosthesis. This anteroposterior radiograph (after intra-articular administration of iodinated contrast medium) shows abnormal contrast extension deep to the acetabular cup and beyond the intertrochanteric line (arrows) at the bone-cement interface.

Media file 57: Image of the femoral component from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph (after intra-articular iodinated contrast injection) shows extension of intra-articular contrast medium into the iliopsoas bursa (arrow).

Media file 58: Image of the femoral component from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty (same patient as in Image 57). This lateral radiograph shows intra-articular contrast medium filling the iliopsoas bursa (arrow) anterior to the hip joint.

Media file 59: Image from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This anteroposterior radiograph (after intra-articular iodinated contrast injection) shows filling of an irregular trochanteric bursa (arrow).

Media file 60: Image of the femoral component from a patient who had a cemented total hip arthroplasty. This coronal multiplanar reformatted computed tomography scan shows a soft-tissue abscess (arrow) extending from the distal prosthesis. Note the subsidence of the femoral component.

Media file 61: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This axial T1-weighted magnetic resonance image shows the distended iliopsoas bursa is isointense relative to muscle (arrow). Note the signal void in the femur from the metal prosthesis.

Media file 62: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty (same patient as in Image 61). This T2-weighted, fat-saturated, fast-spin-echo magnetic resonance image shows heterogeneous distention of the iliopsoas bursa (arrow).

Media file 63: Image from a patient who had a normal total hip arthroplasty. This ultrasonogram is longitudinal to the femoral neck (Neck) and shows the hyperechoic surface (arrows) of the metal femoral head (H) and neck of the prosthesis, as well as posterior reverberation artifacts (between the open arrows). Note the hyperechoicity and shadowing of the native acetabulum (Acet) and the femur. The left side of the image is proximal; the right side is distal.

Media file 64: Image from a patient who had a bipolar hemiarthroplasty. This ultrasonogram is longitudinal to the femoral neck (Neck) and shows a hypoechoic effusion (arrow) that is superficial to the femoral neck. Note the femoral head (H) and acetabular cup (Cup) of the prosthesis. The left side of image is proximal; the right side is distal.

Media file 65: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty with subsequent joint infection. This ultrasonogram is longitudinal to the femoral neck (N) and shows a hypoechoic effusion (arrow) anterior to the femoral neck. Note the acetabular cup (C). The left side of the image is proximal; the right side is distal.

Media file 66: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This ultrasonogram is longitudinal to the femoral neck (Neck) and shows a hypoechoic synovitis (arrows) that is superficial to the head (Head) and neck of the prosthesis. The left side of the image is proximal; the right side is distal. Acet = the native acetabulum.

Media file 67: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty. This ultrasonogram is anterolateral to the hip arthroplasty and shows a hypoechoic and heterogeneous soft-tissue abscess (arrow). Note the increased through-transmission deep to abscess.

Media file 68: Image from a patient who had total hip arthroplasty with subsequent infection of the endoprosthesis. This coronal ultrasonogram of the left thigh is longitudinal to the femur (Femur) and shows anechoic fluid (arrows) adjacent to the prosthesis (Arthroplasty) and native femur. Note that the posterior reverberation artifacts (between the open arrows) from the metal prosthesis occur away from the transducer and do not obscure the overlying fluid collection. The native femur demonstrates posterior shadowing.

Media file 69: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty with subsequent infection. This ultrasonogram is longitudinal to the femoral neck (Neck) and shows the presence of hypoechoic infected fluid (arrows) extending beyond the head (H) and neck of the prosthesis over the native femur. The left side of the image is proximal; the right side is distal.

Media file 70: Image from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty with a subsequent thickened iliopsoas bursa. This ultrasonogram is longitudinal to the femoral neck and shows abnormal hypoechoic tissue (arrow) in the region of the iliopsoas bursa between the iliopsoas tendon (I) and femoral head (H) of the prosthesis. Ultrasound-guided anesthetic injection of this tissue relieved the patient's symptoms. C = acetabular cup; N = femoral neck of the prosthesis. The left side of the image is proximal; the right side is distal.

Media file 71: Bone scan from an asymptomatic patient following a total hip arthroplasty (<1 y postoperative). This delayed image shows mild radionuclide uptake (arrow) around the prosthesis.

Media file 72: Bone scan from an asymptomatic patient following a total hip arthroplasty (>1 y postoperative). This delayed image shows no significant radionuclide uptake around the femoral prosthesis.

Media file 73: Bone scan from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty with a subsequent loose component. This image shows abnormal tracer uptake at the greater tuberosity, femoral stem, and acetabulum.

Media file 74: Bone scan from a patient who had a total hip arthroplasty and a subsequent femoral fracture. This delayed scan shows focal tracer uptake medial to the femoral stem (arrow).

Media file 75: Radiograph from a patient with particle disease (aggressive granulomatosis). Note the extensive lucencies around the acetabular component of the hip.

Media file 76: The sclerotic line on this radiograph represents normal bone condensation of the acetabulum, whereas the lucency represents the adjacent hyaline cartilage. The presence of these findings indicates no surgical alteration of the acetabulum has occurred; therefore, the prosthesis is not a total hip arthroplasty.

References

1. Tigges S, Stiles RG, Roberson JR. Complications of hip arthroplasty causing periprosthetic radiolucency on plain radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jun 1994;162(6):1387-91. [Medline]. [Full Text].

2. White LM, Kim JK, Mehta M, et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging-initial experience. Radiology. Apr 2000;215(1):254-62. [Medline]. [Full Text].

3. Huo MH, Gilbert NF, Parvizi J. What's new in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Aug 2007;89(8):1874-85. [Medline]. [Full Text].

4. Miller TT. Imaging of hip arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. Mar 2006;10(1):30-46. [Medline].

5. Amstutz HC, Campbell P, Le Duff MJ. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: what have we learned?. Instr Course Lect. 2007;56:149-61. [Medline].

6. Manaster BJ. From the RSNA refresher courses. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluation. Radiographics. May 1996;16(3):645-60. [Medline]. [Full Text].

7. Weissman BN. Imaging of total hip replacement. Radiology. Mar 1997;202(3):611-23. [Medline]. [Full Text].

8. Weissman BNW, Sledge CB. The hip. Orthopedic Radiology. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1991:385-495.

9. Tigges S, Stiles RG, Roberson JR. Appearance of septic hip prostheses on plain radiographs. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Aug 1994;163(2):377-80. [Medline]. [Full Text].

10. Berquist TH, Bender CE, Maus TP, Ward EM, Rand JA. Pseudobursae: a useful finding in patients with painful hip arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 1987;148(1):103-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].

11. Kitamura N, Pappedemos PC, Duffy PR 3rd, et al. The value of anteroposterior pelvic radiographs for evaluating pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Dec 2006;453:239-45. [Medline].

12. Buckwalter KA, Parr JA, Choplin RH, Capello WN. Multichannel CT imaging of orthopedic hardware and implants. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. Mar 2006;10(1):86-97. [Medline].

13. Naraghi AM, White LM. Magnetic resonance imaging of joint replacements. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. Mar 2006;10(1):98-106. [Medline].

14. Weybright PN, Jacobson JA, Murry KH, et al. Limited effectiveness of sonography in revealing hip joint effusion: preliminary results in 21 adult patients with native and postoperative hips. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jul 2003;181(1):215-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].

15. van Holsbeeck MT, Eyler WR, Sherman LS, et al. Detection of infection in loosened hip prostheses: efficacy of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Aug 1994;163(2):381-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

16. Rezig R, Copercini M, Montet X, Martinoli C, Bianchi S. Ultrasound diagnosis of anterior iliopsoas impingement in total hip replacement. Skeletal Radiol. Feb 2004;33(2):112-6. [Medline].

17. Lachiewicz PF, Rogers GD, Thomason HC. Aspiration of the hip joint before revision total hip arthroplasty. Clinical and laboratory factors influencing attainment of a positive culture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. May 1996;78(5):749-54. [Medline].

18. Wank R, Miller TT, Shapiro JF. Sonographically guided injection of anesthetic for iliopsoas tendinopathy after total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Ultrasound. Sep 2004;32(7):354-7. [Medline].

19. Einsiedel T, Gebhard F, Bregolato I, et al. Proximal cement fixation in total hip arthroplasty-first results with a new stem design. Int Orthop. Jun 2008;32(3):295-306. [Medline].

20. González Della Valle A, Comba F, Taveras N, Salvati EA. The utility and precision of analogue and digital preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. Jun 2008;32(3):289-94. [Medline].

21. Mouzopoulos G, Stamatakos M, Arabatzi H, et al. The four-year functional result after a displaced subcapital hip fracture treated with three different surgical options. Int Orthop. Jun 2008;32(3):367-73. [Medline].

22. Wedemeyer C, Neuerburg C, Heep H, et al. Jumbo cups for revision of acetabular defects after total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective review of a case series. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. Jun 2008;128(6):545-50. [Medline].

Keywords

hip arthroplasty, hip prosthesis, THR, THA, heterotopic ossification, particle disease, periprosthetic lucency, aggressive granulomatosis, hemiarthroplasty, acetabulum, methylmethacrylate, metal-on-metal articulation, metal-on-metal arthroplasty, cemented component, cementless component, joint aspiration

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Jon A Jacobson, MD, Professor, Director, Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center
Jon A Jacobson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists, International Skeletal Society, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound, and Society of Skeletal Radiology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Michael A Bruno, MD, Associate Professor, Departments of Radiology and Medicine, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine; Director, Radiology Quality Management Services, Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine
Michael A Bruno, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists, Radiological Society of North America, Society of Nuclear Medicine, and Society of Skeletal Radiology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Bernard D Coombs, MB, ChB, PhD, Consulting Staff, Department of Specialist Rehabilitation Services, Hutt Valley District Health Board, New Zealand
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Managing Editor

William R Reinus, MD, MBA, FACR, Professor of Radiology, Temple University; Chief of Musculoskeletal and Trauma Radiology, Vice Chair, Department of Radiology, Temple University Hospital
William R Reinus, MD, MBA, FACR is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Radiology, American Roentgen Ray Society, Radiological Society of North America, and Sigma Xi
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

CME Editor

Robert M Krasny, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Radiology, The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute
Robert M Krasny, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Roentgen Ray Society and Radiological Society of North America
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Felix S Chew, MD, MBA, EdM, Professor, Department of Radiology, Vice Chairman for Radiology Informatics, Section Head of Musculoskeletal Radiology, University of Washington
Felix S Chew, MD, MBA, EdM is a member of the following medical societies: American Roentgen Ray Society, Association of University Radiologists, and Radiological Society of North America
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

© 1994- by Medscape.
All Rights Reserved
(http://www.medscape.com/public/copyright)