MR imaging of soft tissue alterations after total hip arthroplasty: comparison of classic surgical approaches

Objectives To compare soft-tissue changes after total hip arthroplasty with posterior, direct-lateral, anterolateral, or anterior surgical approaches. Methods MRI of 120 patients after primary total hip arthroplasty (30 per approach) were included. Each MRI was assessed by two readers regarding iden...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European radiology 2017-03, Vol.27 (3), p.1312-1321
Main Authors: Agten, Christoph A., Sutter, Reto, Dora, Claudio, Pfirrmann, Christian W. A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods
Bandwidths
Bone surgery
Diagnostic Radiology
Female
Hip Joint - diagnostic imaging
Humans
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Joint replacement surgery
Magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Muscle, Skeletal - diagnostic imaging
Musculoskeletal
Neuroradiology
Postoperative Complications - diagnostic imaging
Prostheses
Radiology
Retrospective Studies
Tendons
Tendons - diagnostic imaging
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To compare soft-tissue changes after total hip arthroplasty with posterior, direct-lateral, anterolateral, or anterior surgical approaches. Methods MRI of 120 patients after primary total hip arthroplasty (30 per approach) were included. Each MRI was assessed by two readers regarding identification of surgical access, fatty muscle atrophy (Goutallier classification), tendon quality (0 = normal, 1 = tendinopathy, 2 = partial tear, 3 = avulsion), and fluid collections. Readers were blinded to the surgical approach. Results Surgical access was correctly identified in all cases. The direct lateral approach showed highest Goutallier grades and tendon damage for gluteus minimus muscle (2.07-2.67 and 2.00-2.77; p  = 0.017 and p  = 0.001 for readers 1 and 2, respectively) and tendon (2.30/1.67; p  
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-016-4455-7