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 Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Increasing number of patients come to computed tomography (CT) imaging with orthopaedic hardware including total ankle replacement (TAR). These patients have either implant related complaints, or they are imaged due to other medical causes with the prosthesis in the imaged body area. Inventions in CT; first helical computed tomography and later, multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) have made imaging of bones and joints extremely fast and precise, resulting in less motion artifacts and thinner sections (Lee et al., 2007; Ohashi et al., 2005; West et al., 2009). With modern scanners image data is routinely obtained as isotropic or near isotropic voxels. This allows image reconstruction in any arbitrary plane without loosing image quality and also 3D volume rendered images (West et al., 2009). CT is useful when imaging ankle after TAR especially in the situations when the patient has implant related symptoms or periprosthetic osteolysis is suspected and the radiographs cannot determine the condition. Cahir et al. (2007) and Keogh et al. (2003) have shown the usefulness of CT in imaging painful hip after total hip replacement. Periprosthetic osteolysis and aseptic loosening are common complications after TAR (Berquist, 2006; Besse et al., 2009; Koivu et al., 2009; Kokkonen et al., 2011; Rodriguez et al., 2010). CT reveals osteolytic changes around prosthesis components in ankle better than radiographs (Besse et al., 2009; Hanna et al., 2007; Koivu et al., 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2009). CT may also be useful in other total ankle replacement related conditions, e.g. periprosthetic fracture, subluxation and dislocation of prosthesis components, infection, impingement and heterotopic ossification. This article is not a comprehensive encyclopedic review of CT scanning of total ankle prostheses. Our aim was to review previous literature of CT in osteolysis related to total ankle prosthesis. This article also contains short description of total ankle replacements.

Computed Tomography of Osteolysis Related to Total Ankle Replacement