RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To evaluate the significant findings of hip periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) using metal-artifact-reduction (MAR) MRI and to compare the MRI results to other clinical markers. METHODS: The results of MRI, including two-dimensional fast-spin echo sequences with increased bandwidth and multi-acquisition variable-resonance image combination selective for hips with orthopedic implants at 1.5T (from April 2014 to November 2021), were retrospectively assessed for imaging findings and diagnostic impressions by two radiologists. Clinical data and courses were also investigated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the significant MRI findings in patients with hip PJI and those who underwent surgical intervention. The MRI impressions were compared with other clinical markers in diagnosing hip PJI. RESULTS: Thirty-seven hip joints in 24 Asian patients (age = 73.9 ± 10.8 years; 18 females) were included. Twelve hip joints (32%) had PJI; seven underwent a surgical intervention. The significant findings for hip PJI included periosteal edema of the acetabulum, intermuscular edema, intramuscular fluid collection, and lymphadenopathy (P < 0.05). In the cases with surgical intervention, the significant findings included capsular distension, capsular thickening, an osteolysis-like pattern of the femur, subcutaneous fluid collection, and lymphadenopathy (P < 0.05). The MRI impressions had high diagnostic significance for both hip PJI cases and those with surgical intervention (P < 0.001). The MRI impression was more significant for hip PJI than the other clinical markers (P < 0.05), while the other clinical markers were more significant in the cases with surgical intervention (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The significant findings in the hip PJI cases included acetabular periosteal edema, intermuscular edema, intramuscular fluid collection, and lymphadenopathy. The significant findings in the cases with surgical intervention included capsular distention, capsular thickening, a femoral osteolysis-like pattern, subcutaneous fluid collection, and lymphadenopathy. The utilization of MAR MRI demonstrated great diagnostic significance for hip PJI.
RESUMEN
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging around metal joint prostheses including multiacquisition variable-resonance image combination selective at 1.5 T (from April 2014 to August 2020) was retrospectively evaluated by 2 radiologists for detection of abnormal findings (joint effusion, capsular thickening, pericapsular edema, soft-tissue fluid collection, soft-tissue edema, bone marrow edema pattern around the implant [BME pattern], lymphadenopathy, and others) and overall image impression for PJI. Regarding the soft-tissue fluid collection, presence of communication to the joint or capsular-like structure was evaluated. Clinical assessments were recorded. Positive predictive values (PPVs), negative predictive values (NPVs), and odds ratios (ORs) for PJI were calculated for the abnormal findings. Overall image impression for PJI was evaluated. χ2, Fisher exact, t, and Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver operating characteristic analysis were used. Interobserver agreement was assessed with κ statistics. RESULTS: Forty-three joints in 36 patients (mean ± SD age, 75.4 ± 8.8 years; 30 women; hip [n = 29], knee [n = 12], and elbow [n = 2]) were evaluated. Eighteen joints (42%) were clinically diagnosed as PJI. The findings suggesting PJI were capsular thickening (PPV, 70%; NPV, 90%; OR, 20.6), soft-tissue fluid collection (PPV, 81%; NPV, 81%; OR, 19.1), soft-tissue edema (PPV, 67%; NPV, 89%; OR, 17), pericapsular edema (PPV, 76%; NPV, 81%; OR, 13.7), and joint effusion (PPV, 55%; NPV, 100%; OR, 12). Soft-tissue fluid collection without capsular-like structure (PPV, 83%; NPV, 74%; OR, 14.4) or with communication to the joint (PPV, 75%; NPV, 71%; OR, 7.3) suggested PJI. The combinations of joint effusion, capsular thickening, pericapsular edema, soft-tissue fluid collection, and soft-tissue edema highly suggested PJI. Regarding the BME pattern, the combination with soft-tissue edema raised the possibility of PJI (PPV, 73%; NPV, 69%; OR, 5.9). Regarding the interobserver agreements for each abnormal finding, κ values were 0.60 to 0.77. Regarding the overall image impression, weighted κ value was 0.97 and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.949 (95% confidence interval, 0.893-1.005) and 0.926 (95% confidence interval, 0.860-0.991) with no significant difference (P = 0.534). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggesting PJI were capsular thickening, soft-tissue fluid collection, soft-tissue edema, pericapsular edema, and joint effusion. The combinations of them highly suggested PJI. Regarding the BME pattern, the combination with soft-tissue edema raised the possibility of PJI.
