Review of the role of dynamic 18F-NaF PET in diagnosing and distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening in hip p
- PDF / 426,394 Bytes
- 5 Pages / 595.276 x 793.701 pts Page_size
- 62 Downloads / 155 Views
REVIEW
Open Access
Review of the role of dynamic 18F-NaF PET in diagnosing and distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening in hip prosthesis Olu Adesanya1*, Andrew Sprowson2, James Masters2 and Charles Hutchinson1
Abstract Joint replacements may fail due to infection, dislocation, peri-prosthetic fracture and loosening. Between 0.4 and 4% of joint replacements are known to be complicated by infection and aseptic loosening 2–18%. Differentiating between infection and aseptic loosening has an important bearing on the ongoing strategy for antimicrobial therapy and surgical intervention, but distinguishing one from the other can be difficult and will often require a battery of clinical and biochemical tests including the use of varying radiological modalities to accurately identify whether problematic joints are infected or aseptically loose. Prompt diagnosis is important due to the development of a biofilm on the surface of the infected prosthesis, which makes treatment difficult. There is no consensus among experts on the ideal imaging technique nor the methodology for image interpretation, but there is an increasing trend to apply hybrid imaging in the investigation of painful joint prosthesis and recent attempts have been made using PET-CT to identify aseptic loosening and infection with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and sodium fluoride 18F-Na. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the role of 18F-NaF sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) in distinguishing between septic and aseptic failure in hip and knee replacements, in addition to evaluating the feasibility of using multi-sequential 18F-NaF PET-CT for the assessment of painful lower limb prostheses. Keywords: F-18 fluoride PET, Arthroplasty, Joint prosthesis, Septic loosening, Aseptic loosening
Background Joint replacement is the surgical intervention of choice for end-stage arthritis. A small but significant proportion of these patients with joint prostheses go on to suffer implant failure. Causes for failure include infection, dislocation, peri-prosthetic fracture and loosening. It is estimated that between 0.4 and 4% of joint replacements are known to be complicated by infection [1] and aseptic loosening 2–18% [2]. Although differentiating between infection and aseptic loosening has an important bearing on the ongoing strategy for antimicrobial therapy and surgical intervention [3], distinguishing one from the other can be difficult and will often require a battery of clinical and biochemical tests including the use of varying radiological modalities to accurately identify whether problematic joints are infected or aseptically loose. Prompt diagnosis is important due to the development of * Correspondence: [email protected] 1 University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, England, UK Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
a biofilm on the surface of the infected prosthesis, which makes treatment difficult [4]. There is currently no consensus among experts on the ideal imaging technique nor the
Data Loading...
