Detection of aseptic loosening in total knee replacements: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 26 Downloads
The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of nuclear imaging modalities in the detection of aseptic loosening of total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Materials and methods
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from database inception to December 2018 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies compared the results of a single imaging modality against an appropriate reference standard of prosthetic TKA loosening, with sufficient information to determine either sensitivity and/or specificity. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
The search strategy identified 572 abstracts. Of these, 12 studies comprising 401 patients across four modalities (bone scintigraphy, 18F-FDG-PET, SPECT/CT arthrogram, radionuclide arthrogram) met the inclusion criteria. All included studies used operative findings, a period of clinical or radiographic observation or both as a reference standard for aseptic loosening. Sixteen comparisons with the reference standards were extracted. All studies were at risk of bias across patient selection, the index test, reference standard, and flow and timing of patients. The most accurate test for diagnosis of aseptic loosening in TKA was SPECT/CT arthrography demonstrated by the summary receiver operating characteristic curve.
The best available evidence suggests the most accurate modality for the detection of aseptic loosening in TKA is SPECT/CT arthrography. However, the available evidence has a high risk of bias, and total number of patients studied for each modality is small so further studies are warranted.
KeywordsMeta-analysis Total knee arthroplasty Nuclear medicine Prosthesis loosening Sensitivity Specificity
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 2.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2018 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA.Google Scholar
- 3.Broughton N, Collopy D, Solomon M. Arthroplasty Society of Australia position statement on follow-up of joint replacement patients. Australian Orthopaedic Association; 2016.Google Scholar
- 6.Hirschmann MT, Konala P, Iranpour F, Kerner A, Rasch H, Friederich NF. Clinical value of SPECT/CT for evaluation of patients with painful knees after total knee arthroplasty—a new dimension of diagnostics? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12(36).Google Scholar
- 8.Reinartz P. FDG-PET in patients with painful hip and knee arthroplasty: technical breakthrough or more of the same. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009;53(1):41–50.Google Scholar
- 14.de Vet H, Eisinga A, Riphagen I, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D. Chapter 7: searching for Studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 04: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.Google Scholar
- 17.Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks J, Harbord R, Takwoingi Y. Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks J, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy version 10: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010.Google Scholar
- 19.Zweig M, Campbell G. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem. 1993;39(4):561–77.Google Scholar
- 22.Claassen L, Ettinger M, Plaass C, Daniilidis K, Calliess T, Ezechieli M. Diagnostic value of bone scintigraphy for aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty. Technol Health Care. 2014;22:767–73.Google Scholar