Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 30, 2026
08:19
Protocol for the Evaluation of MRI Artifacts Caused by Metal Implants to Assess the Suitability of Implants and the Vulnerability of Pulse Sequences
Published on: May 17, 2018
How to image metal-on-metal prostheses and their complications
1Department of Radiology, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Rd, Oxford OX3 7LD, United Kingdom. simon.ostlere@noc.nhs.uk
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology
|August 25, 2011
Summary
Metal-on-metal hip implants can cause concerning reactive masses. Advanced imaging is crucial for diagnosing these masses in patients experiencing symptoms after hip replacement surgery.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic surgery
- Biomaterials science
- Medical imaging
Background:
- Metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty offers a durable option for young, active individuals compared to traditional metal-on-polyethylene implants.
- While midterm outcomes are generally positive, a growing concern is the development of metal-induced periprosthetic reactive masses.
Purpose of the Study:
- To highlight the importance of imaging in evaluating symptomatic metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.
- To differentiate the roles of various imaging modalities in diagnosing complications.
Main Methods:
- Review of clinical presentations and imaging findings in patients with symptomatic metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.
- Analysis of the diagnostic capabilities of radiography versus cross-sectional imaging (CT, MRI) for periprosthetic masses.
Main Results:
- Radiographs are effective in detecting implant fracture and loosening.
- Cross-sectional imaging is essential for the accurate diagnosis and staging of periprosthetic reactive masses, which are increasingly recognized complications.
Conclusions:
- Imaging is vital for investigating symptomatic metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty.
- Cross-sectional imaging modalities are indispensable for characterizing periprosthetic reactive masses, guiding further management.
