Abstract
The evaluation of a painful knee prosthesis remains a difficult problem for both orthopaedic surgeons and radiologists. We have compared digital subtraction arthrography with nuclear arthrography in 7 patients with a painful knee prosthesis. Three patients showed a loose tibial component, demonstrated by both digital subtraction and nuclear arthrography. All 3 underwent revision of their prosthesis. One patient had an equivocal digital subtraction arthrogram and negative nuclear arthrogram, while both studies were negative in the 3 remaining patients. Nuclear arthrography is a simple procedure and can provide useful additional information when combined with digital subtraction arthrography.
References
Abdel-Dayem HM, Barodawala YK, Papademetriou T (1982) Scintigraphic arthrography — comparison with contrast arthrography and future applications. Clin Nucl Med 7: 516–522
Duus BR, Boeckstyns M, Stadeager C (1990) The natural course of radionuclide bone scanning in the evaluation of total knee replacement — a 2 year prospective study. Clin Radiol 41: 341–343
Gelman MI, Coleman RE, Stevens PM, Davey BW (1978) Radiography, radionuclide imaging and arthrography in the evaluation of total hip and knee replacement. Radiology 128: 667–682
Knutson K, Lindstrand A, Lidgren L (1986) Survival of knee arthroplasties — a nationwide multicentre investigation of 8000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 68: 795–803
Robinson M, Stulberg SD, Kirchner PT, Anderson TM (1981) The natural history of bone scans following total knee replacement surgery. Am Soc Artif Internal Organs 27: 369–371
Rosenthall L, Lepanto L, Raymond F (1987) Radiophosphate uptake in asymptomatic knee arthroplasty. J Nucl Med 28: 1546–1549
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Offprint requests to: F.W Poon
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Namasivayam, J., Poon, F.W., Forrester, A. et al. Combined nuclear and digital subtraction contrast arthrography in painful knee prosthesis. Eur J Nucl Med 19, 445–448 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177373
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177373