HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2312021596v1 231/2/333    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stumpe, K. D. M. Articles by Hodler, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stumpe, K. D. M. Articles by Hodler, J.

FDG PET for Differentiation of Infection and Aseptic Loosening in Total Hip Replacements: Comparison with Conventional Radiography and Three-Phase Bone Scintigraphy¹

¹ From the Department of Medical Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, CH-8091 Zurich, Switzerland (K.D.M.S., E.M.K., T.F.H., G.W.G., G.K.v.S.); and Departments of Radiology (M.Z., J.H.) and Orthopaedic Surgery (H.P.N.), Orthopedic University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland. From the 2002 RSNA scientific assembly. Received December 11, 2002; revision requested February 7, 2003; final revision received August 5; accepted September 29. Address correspondence to K.D.M.S. (e-mail: katrin.stumpe@dmr.usz.ch).

PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) with that of conventional radiography and three-phase bone scintigraphy in patients suspected of having infection in their total hip replacements.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with painful total hip replacements and possible septic prosthetic loosening were examined with FDG PET, conventional radiography, and three-phase bone scintigraphy. PET, radiographic, and scintigraphic images were each evaluated by two independent observers in a blinded fashion. For 32 of 35 patients, serial conventional radiographs were available. Results of microbiologic examinations of surgical specimens represented the standard of reference in 26 patients, and results of joint aspiration plus clinical follow-up of at least 6 months represented the standard of reference in the remaining nine patients. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and interobserver variability () values were calculated. The imaging modalities were compared in terms of diagnostic confidence by using the sign test.

RESULTS: Nine patients had septic and 21 patients had aseptic loosening. In five patients, neither loosening nor infection was confirmed. For diagnosing infection with FDG PET, conventional radiography, and bone scintigraphy, respectively, sensitivity values for reader 1 and reader 2 were 33% and 22%, 89% and 78%, and 56% and 44%, while specificity values were 81% and 85%, 50% and 65%, and 88% and 92% and accuracy values were 69% for both readers, 60% and 69%, and 80% for both readers. PET was significantly more specific (P = .035) but less sensitive (P = .016) than conventional radiography for the diagnosis of infection.

CONCLUSION: In a study population of patients suspected of having infected total hip replacements, FDG PET performed similarly to three-phase bone scintigraphy. FDG PET was more specific but less sensitive than conventional radiography for the diagnosis of infection.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Hip, infection, 442.201, 443.201 • Hip, prostheses, 442.454 • Hip, radiography, 44.11 • Hip, radionuclide studies, 44.12172 • Positron emission tomography (PET), comparative studies, 44.12163

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Nagoya, M. Kaya, M. Sasaki, K. Tateda, and T. Yamashita Diagnosis of peri-prosthetic infection at the hip using triple-phase bone scintigraphy J Bone Joint Surg Br, February 1, 2008; 90-B(2): 140 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Kumar, S. Basu, D. Torigian, V. Anand, H. Zhuang, and A. Alavi Role of Modern Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Infection in the Era of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Clin. Microbiol. Rev., January 1, 2008; 21(1): 209 - 224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H Marmery and S Ostlere Imaging of prosthetic joints Imaging, September 1, 2007; 19(3): 299 - 309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. W. Bauer, J. Parvizi, N. Kobayashi, and V. Krebs Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Infection J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., April 1, 2006; 88(4): 869 - 882. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. K. von Schulthess, H. C. Steinert, and T. F. Hany Integrated PET/CT: Current Applications and Future Directions Radiology, February 1, 2006; 238(2): 405 - 422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ohashi, G. Y. El-Khoury, D. L. Bennett, J. M. Restrepo, and K. S. Berbaum Orthopedic Hardware Complications Diagnosed with Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 570 - 577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Love, M. B. Tomas, G. G. Tronco, and C. J. Palestro FDG PET of Infection and Inflammation RadioGraphics, September 1, 2005; 25(5): 1357 - 1368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Love, S. E. Marwin, M. B. Tomas, E. S. Krauss, G. G. Tronco, K. K. Bhargava, K. J. Nichols, and C. J. Palestro Diagnosing Infection in the Failed Joint Replacement: A Comparison of Coincidence Detection 18F-FDG and 111In-Labeled Leukocyte/99mTc-Sulfur Colloid Marrow Imaging J. Nucl. Med., November 1, 2004; 45(11): 1864 - 1871. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]