English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  There is a need for better diagnostic tools that identify loose total hip and knee arthroplasties. Here, we present the accuracy of different  99m Tc-dicarboxypropandiphosphate ([ 99m Tc]Tc-DPD) SPECT/CT quantification tools for the detection of loose prostheses in patients with painful hip and knee arthroplasties.    Methods  Quantitative reconstruction of mineral phase SPECT data was performed using Siemens xSPECT-Quant and xSPECT-Bone, with and without metal artefact reduction (iMAR) of CT-data. Quantitative data (SUVmax values) were compared to intraoperative diagnosis or clinical outcome after at least 1 year as standard of comparison. Cut-off values and accuracies were calculated using receiver operator characteristics. Accuracy of uptake quantification was compared to the accuracy of visual SPECT/CT readings, blinded for the quantitative data and clinical outcome.    Results  In this prospective study, 30 consecutive patients with 33 symptomatic hip and knee prostheses underwent [ 99m Tc]Tc-DPD SPECT/CT. Ten arthroplasties were diagnosed loose and 23 stable. Mean-SUVmax was significantly higher around loose prostheses compared to stable prostheses, regardless of the quantification method ( P  = 0.0025–0.0001). Quantification with xSPECT-Bone-iMAR showed the highest accuracy (93.9% [95% CI 79.6–100%]) which was significantly higher compared to xSPECT-Quant-iMAR (81.8% [67.5–96.1%],  P  = 0.04) and xSPECT-Quant without iMAR (77.4% [62.4–92.4%],  P  = 0.02). Accuracies of clinical reading were non-significantly lower compared to quantitative measures (84.8% [70.6–99.1%] (senior) and 81.5% [67.5–96.1%] (trainee)).    Conclusion  Quantification with [ 99m Tc]Tc-DPD xSPECT-Bone-iMAR discriminates best between loose and stable prostheses of all evaluated methods. The overall high accuracy of different quantitative measures underlines the potential of [ 99m Tc]Tc-DPD-quantification as a biomarker and demands further prospective evaluation in a larger number of prosthesis.

ejnmmi research

Accuracy comparison of various quantitative [99mTc]Tc-DPD SPECT/CT reconstruction techniques in patients with symptomatic hip and knee joint prostheses