Abstract
The prevalence of pseudotumours in patients with large-head metal-on-metal (MOM) THA has been the subject of implant recalls and warnings from various regulatory agencies. To date, there is no consensus on whether ultrasound or MRI is superior for the detection and following the progression of pseudotumours. Ultrasound is relatively cheap but can be operator dependent. MARS MRI has the advantage of excellent visibility of the soft tissue. However, MRI comes at a marked increase cost and takes about twice as long to perform.
At our institution, we prospectively compared ultrasound to MRI for pseudotumour detection in an asymptomatic cohort of patients with MOM THAs.
We enrolled 40 patients with large-head MOM THAs in the study. The mean age was 54 years (range, 34–76 years). The mean time from surgery was 54 months (range, 40–81 months). There were 28 men and 12 women. All patients underwent ultrasound and MRI using slice encoding for metal artifact correction. The gold standard was defined as follows: if both ultrasound and MRI agreed, this was interpreted as concordant and the result was considered accurate.
Ultrasound and MRI agreed in 37 of 40 patients (93%). The prevalence of pseudotumours was 31% (12 of 39) in our cohort. Twenty-three of 39 patients (59%) had completely normal tests and four (10%) had simple fluid collections. Ultrasound had a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 96% while MRI had a sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 100%.
Conclusions: A negative ultrasound rules out pseudotumour in asymptomatic patients as this test is 100% sensitive. Given its lower cost, we recommend ultrasound as the initial screening tool for pseudotumours.
More recently, Kwon et al have compared ultrasound to MARS MRI for following the progression of pseudotumours. They found a strong agreement between the 2 modalities for assessing change in size and consistency of pseudotumours.
