24 research outputs found

    A Comparison of Radiographic and Scintigraphic Techniques to Assess Aseptic Loosening of a Total Hip Prosthesis

    Get PDF
    Teule, G.J.J. [Promotor]Heyligers, I.C. [Copromotor]Raijmakers, P.G.H.M. [Copromotor

    Derivation of forest inventory parameters for carbon estimation using terrestrial LiDAR

    No full text

    The value of contrast and subtraction arthrography in the assessment of aseptic loosening of total hip prostheses: a meta-analysis

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: To summarize and compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast and subtraction arthrography in the assessment of aseptic loosening of total hip arthroplasties. DESIGN: This meta-analysis was performed using methods described by the Cochrane Methods Group on Systematic Reviews of Screening and Diagnostic Tests. We included original, English-language papers published between January 1975 to October 2004 that examined contrast-enhanced arthrography with or without subtraction for diagnosis of loosening of total hip prostheses. A qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed by two investigators. RESULTS: With regard to the acetabular component, pooled sensitivity and specificity for contrast arthrography was 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-84) and 74% (95% CI, 53-87), respectively. Subtraction arthrography had a significantly higher sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 84-93) (p=0.01), with a similar specificity of 76% (95% CI, 68-82). For the femoral component, pooled sensitivity and specificity for contrast arthrography were 63% (95% CI, 53-72) and 78% (95% CI, 68-86). Pooled estimates for subtraction arthrography revealed a significantly higher sensitivity of 86% (95% CI, 74-93) (p=0.003). Specificity was 85% (95% CI, 77-91) and was similar to the data of contrast arthrography (p=0.23). CONCLUSION: Using the present data we found that the subtraction arthrography is a sensitive technique for detection of loosening of total hip prostheses, offering added value over contrast arthrography, especially for evaluation of the femoral component

    The use of plain radiography, subtraction arthrography, nuclear arthrography, and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of a loose acetabular component of a total hip prosthesis: a systematic review.

    No full text
    This meta-analysis was performed to summarize and compare the diagnostic performance and diagnostic accuracy of radiographic and scintigraphic techniques in the evaluation of patients suspected of having aseptically loose acetabular components. Twenty-eight studies, published between January 1975 and October 2004, presented sufficient data for quantitative analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity rates for plain radiography were 70% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 59%-79%) and 80% (95% CI = 73%-86%), respectively; those for subtraction arthrography were 89% (95% CI = 84%-93%) and 76% (95% CI = 68%-82%), respectively; and those for nuclear arthrography were 87% (95% CI = 57%-97%) and 64% (95% CI = 40%-82%), respectively. Finally, bone scintigraphy had a sensitivity of 67% (95% CI = 57%-76%) and a specificity of 75% (95% CI = 64%-83%). We found a significantly higher sensitivity for subtraction arthrography as compared with plain radiography and bone scintigraphy. Therefore, subtraction arthrography is recommended for use as an additional diagnostic technique when plain radiography is found to be inconclusive. (aut. ref.
    corecore