The incidence of complications following total hip arthroplasty is low, but due to the frequency of the procedure, they are quite commonly encountered and require appropriate investigation. Complications include aseptic loosening, infection, foreign body granulomatosis (osteolysis), adverse reactions to metal debris, periprosthetic fracture, heterotopic ossification, hardware failure, and a range of soft tissue complications, all of which may result in pain. Relevant imaging findings are illustrated and the role of various imaging modalities is reviewed. A suggested approach for the radiological investigation of each potential complication is outlined, based on our experience at a specialist referral unit.
BurgeA.J.Total hip arthroplasty: MR imaging of complications unrelated to metal wearSemin Musculoskelet Radiol2015; 19:31–39.
3.
MancusoC.A.SalvatiE.A.JohansonN.A.PetersonM.G.CharlsonM.E.Patients' expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplastyJ Arthroplasty1997; 12:387–396.
4.
ChangC.Y.HuangA.J.PalmerW.E.Radiographic evaluation of hip implantsSemin Musculoskelet Radiol2015; 19:12–20.
5.
RajpuraA.KendoffD.BoardT.N.The current state of bearing surfaces in total hip replacementBone Joint J2014; 96:147–156.
6.
MulcahyH.ChewF.S.Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 1, features and radiographic assessmentAJR Am J Roentgenol2012; 199:559–569.
7.
MulcahyH.ChewF.S.Current concepts of hip arthroplasty for radiologists: part 2, revisions and complicationsAJR Am J Roentgenol2012; 199:570–580.
8.
MaloneyE.HaA.S.MillerT.T.Imaging of adverse reactions to metal debrisSemin Musculoskelet Radiol2015; 19:21–30.
9.
ManasterB.J.From the RSNA refresher courses. Total hip arthroplasty: radiographic evaluationRadiographics1996; 16:645–660.
10.
BambergF.DierksA.NikolaouK.ReiserM.F.BeckerC.R.JohnsonT.R.Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolationEur Radiol2011; 21:1424–1429.
11.
CoupalT.M.MallinsonP.I.McLaughlinP.NicolaouS.MunkP.L.OuelletteH.Peering through the glare: using dual-energy CT to overcome the problem of metal artefacts in bone radiologySkelet Radiol2014; 43:567–575.
12.
AnderssonK.M.NowikP.PerslidenJ.ThunbergP.NorrmanE.Metal artefact reduction in CT imaging of hip prostheses-an evaluation of commercial techniques provided by four vendorsBr J Radiol88201520140473
13.
HayterC.L.KoffM.F.ShahP.KochK.M.MillerT.T.PotterH.G.MRI after arthroplasty: comparison of MAVRIC and conventional fast spin-echo techniquesAJR Am J Roentgenol2011; 197:W405–W411.
14.
KochK.M.LorbieckiJ.E.HinksR.S.KingK.F.A multispectral three-dimensional acquisition technique for imaging near metal implantsMagn Reson Med2009; 61:381–390.
15.
ChoiS.J.KochK.M.HargreavesB.A.StevensK.J.GoldG.E.Metal artifact reduction with MAVRIC SL at 3-T MRI in patients with hip arthroplastyAJR Am J Roentgenol2015; 204:140–147.
16.
FritzJ.LurieB.MillerT.T.Imaging of hip arthroplastySemin Musculoskelet Radiol2013; 17:316–327.
17.
Abu-AmerY.DarwechI.ClohisyJ.C.Aseptic loosening of total joint replacements: mechanisms underlying osteolysis and potential therapiesArthritis Res Ther9Suppl 12007S6
18.
HaddadF.S.AshbyE.KonangamparambathS.Should follow-up of patients with arthroplasties be carried out by general practitioners?J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89:1133–1134.
19.
PluotE.DavisE.T.RevellM.DaviesA.M.JamesS.L.Hip arthroplasty. Part 2: normal and abnormal radiographic findingsClin Radiol2009; 64:961–971.
20.
DevittA.O'SullivanT.QuinlanW.16- to 25-year follow-up study of cemented arthroplasty of the hip in patients aged 50 years or youngerJ Arthroplasty1997; 12:479–489.
21.
FritzJ.LurieB.MillerT.T.PotterH.G.MR imaging of hip arthroplasty implantsRadiographics2014; 34:E106–E132.
22.
TamH.H.BhaludinB.RahmanF.WellerA.EjinduV.ParthipunA.SPECT-CT in total hip arthroplastyClin Radiol2014; 69:82–95.
23.
WernerB.C.BrownT.E.Instability after total hip arthroplastyWorld J Orthoped2012; 3:122–130.
24.
CahirJ.G.TomsA.P.MarshallT.J.WimhurstJ.NolanJ.CT and MRI of hip arthroplastyClin Radiol2007; 62:1163–1171 discussion 72-3
25.
RothT.D.MaertzN.A.ParrJ.A.BuckwalterK.A.ChoplinR.H.CT of the hip prosthesis: appearance of components, fixation, and complicationsRadiographics2012; 32:1089–1107.
26.
GaskiG.E.ScullyS.P.In brief: classifications in brief: Vancouver classification of postoperative periprosthetic femur fracturesClin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469:1507–1510.
27.
BauerT.W.ParviziJ.KobayashiN.KrebsV.Diagnosis of periprosthetic infectionJ Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88:869–882.
28.
PfirrmannC.W.NotzliH.P.DoraC.HodlerJ.ZanettiM.Abductor tendons and muscles assessed at MR Imaging after total hip arthroplasty in asymptomatic and symptomatic patientsRadiology2005; 235:969–976.
29.
DoraC.HouwelingM.KochP.SierraR.J.Iliopsoas impingement after total hip replacement: the results of non-operative management, tenotomy or acetabular revisionJ Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89:1031–1035.
Perez-CotoI.Hernandez-VaqueroD.Suarez-VazquezA.Sandoval-GarciaM.A.Escandon-RodriguezA.Influence of clinical and radiological variables on the extent and distribution of periprosthetic osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty with a hydroxyapatite-coated multiple-hole acetabular component: a magnetic resonance imaging studyJ Arthroplasty2014; 29:2043–2048.
32.
CartyF.L.CashmanJ.P.ParviziJ.ZogaA.C.MorrisonW.B.Imaging of the postoperative hipSemin Musculoskelet Radiol2011; 15:357–371.
33.
CooperH.J.Della ValleC.J.BergerR.A.Corrosion at the head-neck taper as a cause for adverse local tissue reactions after total hip arthroplastyJ Bone Joint Surg Am2012; 94:1655–1661.
34.
ChanaR.EspositoC.CampbellP.A.WalterW.K.WalterW.L.Mixing and matching causing taper wear: corrosion associated with pseudotumour formationJ Bone Joint Surg Br2012; 94:281–286.
35.
HartA.J.SabahS.A.BandiA.S.Sensitivity and specificity of blood cobalt and chromium metal ions for predicting failure of metal-on-metal hip replacementJ Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93:1308–1313.
36.
HartA.J.SatchithanandaK.LiddleA.D.Pseudotumors in association with well-functioning metal-on-metal hip prostheses: a case-control study using three-dimensional computed tomography and magnetic resonance imagingJ Bone Joint Surg Am2012; 94:317–325.
37.
ChangE.Y.McAnallyJ.L.Van HorneJ.R.Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: do symptoms correlate with MR imaging findings?Radiology2012; 265:848–857.
38.
LewinnekG.E.LewisJ.L.TarrR.CompereC.L.ZimmermanJ.R.Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplastiesJ Bone Joint Surg Am1978; 60:217–220.
39.
FisherJ.Bioengineering reasons for the failure of metal-on-metal hip prostheses: an engineer's perspectiveJ Bone Joint Surg Br2011; 93:1001–1004.
40.
GarbuzD.S.HargreavesB.A.DuncanC.P.MasriB.A.WilsonD.R.ForsterB.B.The John Charnley Award: Diagnostic accuracy of MRI versus ultrasound for detecting pseudotumors in asymptomatic metal-on-metal THAClin Orthop Relat Res2014; 472:417–423.
