Abstract
Introduction
Osteloysis following metal-on-UHMW polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is well reported, as is lack of osteolysis following Ceramic-on-Ceramic (CoC)THA. Early ceramic failures did report some osteolysis, but in flawed implants. As 3rd and now 4th generation ceramic THAs come into mid- and long-term use, the orthopaedic community has begun to see reports of high survival rates and very low incidence of osteolysis in these bearings. Osteolysis reported after 3rd generation CoC THA often included metallosis due to neck rim impingement. In our department we have revised only 2 hips in over 6000 CoC THAs for osteolysis. Both had evidence of metallosis as well as ceramic wear. The technique used by Radiologists for identifying the nature of lesions on CT is the Hounsfield score which will identify the density of the tissue within the lucent area. It is common for radiologist to have no access to previous imaging, especially pre-operative imaging if a long time has elapsed.
With such a low incidence of osteolysis in this patient group, what, then, should a surgeon do on receiving a CT report on a ceramic-on-ceramic THA which states there is osteolysis? Revision of such implants in elderly patients has a high risk of morbidity and mortality.
Objectives
This retrospective review aims to determine the accuracy of CT in identifying true osteolysis in a cohort of long-term third generation ceramic-on-ceramic uncemented hip arthroplasties in our department.
Methods
Pelvic CT scans were performed on the first 27 patients from a cohort of 301 patients undergoing 15 year review with 3rd generation alumina-alumina cementless THAs. The average follow-up was 15 years (15–17). The CT scans were reviewed against pre-operative and post-operative radiographs and reviewed by a second musculoskeletal specialist radiologist.
Results
Eleven of the CTscans were reported to show acetabular osteolysis, two reported osteolysis or possible pre-existing cyst and one reported a definitive pre-existing cyst. After review of previous imaging including pre-operative radiographs, eleven of the thirteen patients initially reported to have osteolysis were found to have pre-existing cysts or geodes in the same size and position as the reported osteolysis, and a further patient had spot-welds with stress-shielding. One patient with evidence of true osteolysis awaits aspiration or biopsy to determine if he has evidence of ceramic wear or metallosis.
Conclusions
Reports of osteolysis on CT should be interpreted with care in modern ceramic-on-ceramic THA to prevent unnecessary revision. Further imaging and investigations may be necessary to exclude other conditions such as geodes, or stress shielding which are frequently confused with osteolysis on CT scans.
