Purpose: The purpose of our study was to demonstrate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when measuring and characterising periprosthetic fluid collections in patients with painful hip prosthesis and to provide an estimation of interobserver reproducibility. Materials and methods: Nineteen patients (mean age 59±13 years) with painful total hip replacement and clinical suspicion of infection underwent MRI. Images were reviewed blindly by two musculoskeletal radiologists with different levels of experience who evaluated the presence/absence of soft tissue oedema or fluid collection (when present, three-plane maximal diameters were measured; involvement of skin/subcutaneous/deep tissues or prosthesis were estimated; fluid was classified as serous/purulent/haematic according to signal behaviour). Interobserver agreement was calculated (Cohen's ). Results: A total of 26 MRI studies were carried out (three patients underwent two and two patients underwent three MRI examinations). Both readers detected soft tissue oedema (13/26, 50%) or fluid collection (21/26, 81%) and characterised the fluid as serous (9/21, 43%), purulent (8/21, 38%) or haematic (4/21, 19%). The collection involved skin/subcutaneous tissues (16/21, 76%), deep soft tissues (19/21, 91%) or the implant (12/21, 57%). For all evaluations, interobserver agreement was complete (=1). No significant differences were found between the measurements of the collections (p>0.258). Conclusions: MRI is highly reproducible in detection, localisation, quantification, and characterisation of fluid collections when the presence of implant infection is clinically suspected. The purpose of our study was to demonstrate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when measuring and characterising periprosthetic fluid collections in patients with painful hip prosthesis and to provide an estimation of interobserver reproducibility. Materials and methods Nineteen patients (mean age 59±13 years) with painful total hip replacement and clinical suspicion of infection underwent MRI. Images were reviewed blindly by two musculoskeletal radiologists with different levels of experience who evaluated the presence/absence of soft tissue oedema or fluid collection (when present, three-plane maximal diameters were measured; involvement of skin/subcutaneous/deep tissues or prosthesis were estimated; fluid was classified as serous/purulent/haematic according to signal behaviour). Interobserver agreement was calculated (Cohen’s ). Results A total of 26 MRI studies were carried out (three patients underwent two and two patients underwent three MRI examinations). Both readers detected soft tissue oedema (13/26, 50%) or fluid collection (21/26, 81%) and characterised the fluid as serous (9/21, 43%), purulent (8/21, 38%) or haematic (4/21, 19%). The collection involved skin/subcutaneous tissues (16/21, 76%), deep soft tissues (19/21, 91%) or the implant (12/21, 57%). For all evaluations, interobserver agreement was complete (=1). No significant differences were found between the measurements of the collections (p>0.258). Conclusions MRI is highly reproducible in detection, localisation, quantification, and characterisation of fluid collections when the presence of implant infection is clinically suspected.

Aliprandi, A., Sconfienza, L., Randelli, F., Bandirali, M., Di Leo, G., Sardanelli, F. (2012). Magnetic resonance imaging of painful total hip replacement: Detection and characterization of periprosthetic fluid collection and interobserver reproducibility. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 117(1), 85-95 [10.1007/s11547-011-0706-5].

Magnetic resonance imaging of painful total hip replacement: Detection and characterization of periprosthetic fluid collection and interobserver reproducibility

Aliprandi A
;
2012

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of our study was to demonstrate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when measuring and characterising periprosthetic fluid collections in patients with painful hip prosthesis and to provide an estimation of interobserver reproducibility. Materials and methods: Nineteen patients (mean age 59±13 years) with painful total hip replacement and clinical suspicion of infection underwent MRI. Images were reviewed blindly by two musculoskeletal radiologists with different levels of experience who evaluated the presence/absence of soft tissue oedema or fluid collection (when present, three-plane maximal diameters were measured; involvement of skin/subcutaneous/deep tissues or prosthesis were estimated; fluid was classified as serous/purulent/haematic according to signal behaviour). Interobserver agreement was calculated (Cohen's ). Results: A total of 26 MRI studies were carried out (three patients underwent two and two patients underwent three MRI examinations). Both readers detected soft tissue oedema (13/26, 50%) or fluid collection (21/26, 81%) and characterised the fluid as serous (9/21, 43%), purulent (8/21, 38%) or haematic (4/21, 19%). The collection involved skin/subcutaneous tissues (16/21, 76%), deep soft tissues (19/21, 91%) or the implant (12/21, 57%). For all evaluations, interobserver agreement was complete (=1). No significant differences were found between the measurements of the collections (p>0.258). Conclusions: MRI is highly reproducible in detection, localisation, quantification, and characterisation of fluid collections when the presence of implant infection is clinically suspected. The purpose of our study was to demonstrate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) when measuring and characterising periprosthetic fluid collections in patients with painful hip prosthesis and to provide an estimation of interobserver reproducibility. Materials and methods Nineteen patients (mean age 59±13 years) with painful total hip replacement and clinical suspicion of infection underwent MRI. Images were reviewed blindly by two musculoskeletal radiologists with different levels of experience who evaluated the presence/absence of soft tissue oedema or fluid collection (when present, three-plane maximal diameters were measured; involvement of skin/subcutaneous/deep tissues or prosthesis were estimated; fluid was classified as serous/purulent/haematic according to signal behaviour). Interobserver agreement was calculated (Cohen’s ). Results A total of 26 MRI studies were carried out (three patients underwent two and two patients underwent three MRI examinations). Both readers detected soft tissue oedema (13/26, 50%) or fluid collection (21/26, 81%) and characterised the fluid as serous (9/21, 43%), purulent (8/21, 38%) or haematic (4/21, 19%). The collection involved skin/subcutaneous tissues (16/21, 76%), deep soft tissues (19/21, 91%) or the implant (12/21, 57%). For all evaluations, interobserver agreement was complete (=1). No significant differences were found between the measurements of the collections (p>0.258). Conclusions MRI is highly reproducible in detection, localisation, quantification, and characterisation of fluid collections when the presence of implant infection is clinically suspected.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Fluid collection; Infection; Interobserver reproducibility; Magnetic resonance imaging; Total hip arthroplasty;
English
Italian
2012
117
1
85
95
reserved
Aliprandi, A., Sconfienza, L., Randelli, F., Bandirali, M., Di Leo, G., Sardanelli, F. (2012). Magnetic resonance imaging of painful total hip replacement: Detection and characterization of periprosthetic fluid collection and interobserver reproducibility. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 117(1), 85-95 [10.1007/s11547-011-0706-5].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Aliprandi-2012-Radiologia Medica-VoR.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 353.1 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
353.1 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/524540
Citazioni
  • Scopus 18
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
Social impact