Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasound evaluations and guided procedures of the painful joint arthroplasty

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Skeletal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe the use of ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of painful joint arthroplasty. Ultrasound plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of the painful joint arthroplasty, especially given its unique dynamic capabilities, convenience, and high resolution. Ultrasound guidance is also instrumental for procedures in both diagnosing and in select cases, treating the painful joint arthroplasty. Topics to be discussed in this article include trends in arthroplasty placement, benefits of the use of ultrasound overall, and ultrasound evaluation of periprosthetic joint infections. We will also review the sonographic findings with dissociated/displaced components and adverse reaction to metallic debris including metallosis, trunnionosis, and metal-on-metal pseudotumors. Additionally, we will discuss ultrasound evaluation of tendon pathologies with arthroplasties, including dynamic maneuvers to evaluate for tendon impingement/snapping. Finally, we will cover ultrasound-guided joint arthroplasty injection indications and precautions.

Key points

• Ultrasound is preferred over MRI in patients with joint arthroplasty and plays a crucial role in diagnosis, especially given its unique dynamic capabilities, convenience and high resolution.

• It is especially beneficial for US-guided aspiration in periprosthetic joint infections; effectively used to evaluate periprosthetic fluid collections, facilitating differentiation between abscesses and aseptic collections, and tracking sinus tracts.

• Recently, the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections has shifted focus to biomarkers in the periprosthetic fluid, specifically α‐defensin, which has a high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing infection.

• Cutibacterium acnes is a major pathogen responsible for shoulder arthroplasty infections, often presenting with normal laboratory values and since slow growing, must be kept for a minimum of 14 days.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

TJA:

Total joint arthroplasty

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

MoM:

Metal-on-metal

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infection

US:

Ultrasound

References

  1. Fingar KR, Stocks C, Weiss AJ, Steiner CA. Most frequent operating room procedures performed in U.S. hospitals, 2003–2012: Statistical Brief #186. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.

  2. Gademan MG, Hofstede SN, VlietVlieland TP, Nelissen RG, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Indication criteria for total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: a state-of-the-science overview. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Quintana JM, Arostegui I, Escobar A, Azkarate J, Goenaga JI, Lafuente I. Prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis and the appropriateness of joint replacement in an older population. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1576–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tran G, Khalil LS, Wrubel A, Klochko CL, Davis JJ, Soliman SB. Incidental findings detected on preoperative CT imaging obtained for robotic-assisted joint replacements: clinical importance and the effect on the scheduled arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50:1151–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:2496–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khalil LS, Darrith B, Franovic S, Davis JJ, Weir RM, Banka TR. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Short Forms demonstrate responsiveness in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:1540–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mallon S, Bussis K, Beswick Z, North WT, Soliman SB. Ultrasonographic and radiographic findings of polyethylene component displacement with severe metallosis and metal-induced synovitis following total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2019;26:941–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. North WT, Mehran N, Davis JJ, Silverton CD, Weir RM, Laker MW. Topical vs intravenous tranexamic acid in primary total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1022–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Srivastava K, Bozic KJ, Silverton C, Nelson AJ, Makhni EC, Davis JJ. Reconsidering strategies for managing chronic periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty: using decision analytics to find the optimal strategy between one-stage and two-stage total knee revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:14–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Klug A, Gramlich Y, Rudert M, et al. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future heath care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29:3287–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL Jr. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:S79-85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Arnholdt J, Kamawal Y, Holzapfel BM, Ripp A, Rudert M, Steinert AF. Evaluation of implant fit and frontal plane alignment after bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments and implants. Arch Med Sci. 2018;14:1424–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Aujla RS, Esler CN. Total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in patients less than fifty-five years of age: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2598-603.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Netravali NA, Shen F, Park Y, Bargar WL. A perspective on robotic assistance for knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop. 2013;2013:970703.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lim SJ, Jang SP, Kim DW, Moon YW, Park YS. Primary ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty using a 32-mm ceramic head with a titanium-alloy sleeve. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3781–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sobieraj M, Marwin S. Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in total joint arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;76:38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Delaunay CP, Putman S, Puliero B, Begin M, Migaud H, Bonnomet F. Cementless total hip arthroplasty with metasul bearings provides good results in active young patients: a concise followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:2126–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:627–35.

    Article�� PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Conditt MA, Roche MW. Minimally invasive robotic-arm-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:63–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nodzo SR, Chang CC, Carroll KM, et al. Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position: a CT-based study. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:1303–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sousa PL, Sculco PK, Mayman DJ, Jerabek SA, Ast MP, Chalmers BP. Robots in the operating room during hip and knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13:309–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Klauser AS, Tagliafico A, Allen GM, et al. Clinical indications for musculoskeletal ultrasound: a Delphi-based consensus paper of the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1140–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee MH, Sheehan SE, Orwin JF, Lee KS. Comprehensive shoulder US examination: a standardized approach with multimodality correlation for common shoulder disease. Radiographics. 2016;36:1606–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alves TI, Girish G, Kalume Brigido M, Jacobson JA. US of the knee: scanning techniques, pitfalls, and pathologic conditions. Radiographics. 2016;36:1759–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Soliman SB, Spicer PJ, van Holsbeeck MT. Sonographic and radiographic findings of posterior tibial tendon dysfunction: a practical step forward. Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48:11–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Long SS, Surrey D, Nazarian LN. Common sonographic findings in the painful hip after hip arthroplasty. J Ultrasound Med. 2012;31:301–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Romanò CL, Petrosillo N, Argento G, et al. The role of imaging techniques to define a peri-prosthetic hip and knee joint infection: multidisciplinary consensus statements. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2548.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. van Holsbeeck MT, Eyler WR, Sherman LS, et al. Detection of infection in loosened hip prostheses: efficacy of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:381–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Signore A, Sconfienza LM, Borens O, et al. Consensus document for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infections: a joint paper by the EANM, EBJIS, and ESR (with ESCMID endorsement). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:971–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Battaglia M, Vannini F, Guaraldi F, Rossi G, Biondi F, Sudanese A. Validity of preoperative ultrasound-guided aspiration in the revision of hip prosthesis. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011;37:1977–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Eisler T, Svensson O, Engström CF, et al. Ultrasound for diagnosis of infection in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:1010–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Talbot BS, Weinberg EP. MR imaging with metal-suppression sequences for evaluation of total joint arthroplasty. Radiographics. 2016;36:209–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Heffernan EJ, Alkubaidan FO, Nielsen TO, Munk PL. The imaging appearances of metallosis. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37:59–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Miller TT. Sonography of joint replacements. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2006;10:79–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kwon YM, Dimitriou D, Liow MH, Tsai TY, Li G. Is ultrasound as useful as metal artifact reduction sequence magnetic resonance imaging in longitudinal surveillance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1821–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K, et al. The 2018 definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection: an evidence-based and validated criteria. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:1309-14.e2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zeng YQ, Deng S, Zhu XY, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the synovial fluid α-defensin lateral flow test in periprosthetic joint infection: a meta-analysis. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:708–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Fink B, Sevelda F. Periprosthetic joint infection of shoulder arthroplasties: diagnostic and treatment options. BioMed Res Int. 2017;2017:4582756.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Saper D, Capiro N, Ma R, Li X. Management of Propionibacterium acnes infection after shoulder surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015;8:67–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Kadler BK, Mehta SS, Funk L. Propionibacterium acnes infection after shoulder surgery. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015;9:139–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ting NT, Della Valle CJ. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection-an algorithm-based approach. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:2047–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Porrino J, Wang A, Moats A, Mulcahy H, Kani K. Prosthetic joint infections: diagnosis, management, and complications of the two-stage replacement arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol. 2020;49:847–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Abdel Karim M, Andrawis J, Bengoa F, et al. Hip and knee section, diagnosis, algorithm: proceedings of international consensus on orthopedic infections. J Arthroplast. 2019;34:S339–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chan BY, Crawford AM, Kobes PH, et al. Septic arthritis: an evidence-based review of diagnosis and image-guided aspiration. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215:568–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kung JW, Yablon C, Huang ES, Hennessey H, Wu JS. Clinical and radiologic predictive factors of septic hip arthritis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:868–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Partridge DG, Winnard C, Townsend R, Cooper R, Stockley I. Joint aspiration, including culture of reaspirated saline after a ‘dry tap’, is sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:749–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ali F, Wilkinson JM, Cooper JR, et al. Accuracy of joint aspiration for the preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee HD, Prashant K, Shon WY. Management of periprosthetic hip joint infection. Hip Pelvis. 2015;27:63–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Hanna BC, Thompson NW, Wilson DS, Mollan RA. Extra-articular migration of the patellar component following total knee arthroplasty. Ulster Med J. 2002;71:57–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Helito CP, Gobbi RG, Tirico LE, Pecora JR, Camanho GL. Loosening of the patellar component and extra-articular and transcutaneous migration after TKA. Orthopedics. 2014;37:e211–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Singisetti K, Raju P, Langton D, Nargol A. Ultrasound is reliable in diagnosis of adverse reactions to metallic debris following metal on metal hip replacement [abstract]. Orthopaedic Proceedings. 2012;94-B:550.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sansone V, Pagani D, Melato M. The effects on bone cells of metal ions released from orthopaedic implants. A review Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2013;10:34–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Romesburg JW, Wasserman PL, Schoppe CH. Metallosis and metal-induced synovitis following total knee arthroplasty: review of radiographic and CT findings. J Radiol Case Rep. 2010;4:7–17.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Rajgopal A, Panda I, Tyagi VC. Early failure with massive metallosis and posteromedial wear following atraumatic anterior cruciate ligament rupture after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2017;4:15–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Craig R, Vlychou M, McCarthy CL, Gibbons CLMH, Athanasou NA. Metal wear-induced pseudotumour following an endoprosthetic knee replacement for Ewing sarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 2017;46:967–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Matharu GS, Mansour R, Dada O, Ostlere S, Pandit HG, Murray DW. Which imaging modality is most effective for identifying pseudotumours in metal-on-metal hip resurfacings requiring revision: ultrasound or MARS-MRI or both. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B:40–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Weissman BN, Scott RD, Brick GW, Corson JM. Radiographic detection of metal-induced synovitis as a complication of arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:1002–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Case CP, Langkamer VG, James C, et al. Widespread dissemination of metal debris from implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:701–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Mistry JB, Chughtai M, Elmallah RK, et al. Trunnionosis in total hip arthroplasty: a review. J Orthop Traumatol. 2016;17:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Awan O, Chen L, Resnik CS. Imaging evaluation of complications of hip arthroplasty: review of current concepts and imaging findings. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2013;64:306–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lainiala O, Elo P, Reito A, Pajamäki J, Puolakka T, Eskelinen A. Good sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound for detecting pseudotumors in 83 failed metal-on-metal hip replacements. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:339–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Piechota M, Maczuch J, Skupiński J, Kukawska-Sysio K, Wawrzynek W. Internal snapping hip syndrome in dynamic ultrasonography. J Ultrason. 2016;16:296–303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Cardinal E, Buckwalter KA, Capello WN, Duval N. US of the snapping iliopsoas tendon. Radiology. 1996;198:521–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ives EP, Nazarian LN, Parker L, Garrigues GE, Williams GR. Subscapularis tendon tears: a common sonographic finding in symptomatic postarthroplasty shoulders. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013;41:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Sofka CM, Adler RS. Original report. Sonographic evaluation of shoulder arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1117–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Odak S, Ivory J. Management of abductor mechanism deficiency following total hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:343–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bremer AK, Kalberer F, Pfirrmann CW, Dora C. Soft-tissue changes in hip abductor muscles and tendons after total hip replacement: comparison between the direct anterior and the transgluteal approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:886–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Creteur V, De Angelis R, Absil J, Kyriakidis T, Madani A. Sonographic and radiographic evaluation of the extensor tendons in early postoperative period after total knee arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol. 2021;50:485–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Cyteval C. Imaging of knee implants and related complications. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2016;97:809–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Mills ES, Elman MB, Foran JRH. The risk of acute infection following intra-articular corticosteroid injection into a pre-existing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:216–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Klement MR, Luzzi AJ, Siddiqi A, Valichka K, Sharkey PF. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection following total knee arthroplasty: is it effective? J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:303–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Stephanie Stebens, MLIS, AHIP, for her guidance and assistance in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Steven B. Soliman, Saifuddin T. Vohra & Marnix T. van Holsbeeck

  2. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA

    Jason J. Davis & Stephanie J. Muh

  3. Division of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Ashish Patel

Authors
  1. Steven B. Soliman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason J. Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie J. Muh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saifuddin T. Vohra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ashish Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marnix T. van Holsbeeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven B. Soliman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soliman, S.B., Davis, J.J., Muh, S.J. et al. Ultrasound evaluations and guided procedures of the painful joint arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol 51, 2105–2120 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04080-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-022-04080-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation