Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35624311›Full record

ReviewSkeletal radiology2022

Ultrasound evaluations and guided procedures of the painful joint arthroplasty.

Steven B Soliman, Jason J Davis, Stephanie J Muh, Saifuddin T Vohra, Ashish Patel, Marnix T van Holsbeeck

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Skeletal radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Current Uses for Medical Imaging With Orthopaedic Implant Technology.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2026
    Review
  3. Intrasheath Tendon Subluxation Beyond the Ankle: The First Case Series in the Hand.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Dynamic ultrasound of the hip.Skeletal radiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven B SolimanDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. stevens@rad.hfh.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4034-584X
Jason J DavisDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Stephanie J MuhDivision of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Orthopedics, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Saifuddin T VohraDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Ashish PatelDivision of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Marnix T van HolsbeeckDivision of Musculoskeletal Radiology, Department of Radiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Henry Ford Hospital · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe the use of ultrasound for the diagnosis and treatment of painful joint arthroplasty. Ultrasound plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of the painful joint arthroplasty, especially given its unique dynamic capabilities, convenience, and high resolution. Ultrasound guidance is also instrumental for procedures in both diagnosing and in select cases, treating the painful joint arthroplasty. Topics to be discussed in this article include trends in arthroplasty placement, benefits of the use of ultrasound overall, and ultrasound evaluation of periprosthetic joint infections. We will also review the sonographic findings with dissociated/displaced components and adverse reaction to metallic debris including metallosis, trunnionosis, and metal-on-metal pseudotumors. Additionally, we will discuss ultrasound evaluation of tendon pathologies with arthroplasties, including dynamic maneuvers to evaluate for tendon impingement/snapping. Finally, we will cover ultrasound-guided joint arthroplasty injection indications and precautions. KEY POINTS: • Ultrasound is preferred over MRI in patients with joint arthroplasty and plays a crucial role in diagnosis, especially given its unique dynamic capabilities, convenience and high resolution. • It is especially beneficial for US-guided aspiration in periprosthetic joint infections; effectively used to evaluate periprosthetic fluid collections, facilitating differentiation between abscesses and aseptic collections, and tracking sinus tracts. • Recently, the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infections has shifted focus to biomarkers in the periprosthetic fluid, specifically α-defensin, which has a high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing infection. • Cutibacterium acnes is a major pathogen responsible for shoulder arthroplasty infections, often presenting with normal laboratory values and since slow growing, must be kept for a minimum of 14 days.

Indexed as

Arthritis, InfectiousArthroplasty, Replacement, HipProsthesis-Related InfectionsArthralgiaBiomarkersHumansProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySynovial FluidBiomarkersAdverse reaction to metallic debrisMetallosisMetal-on-metal pseudotumorsMusculoskeletal ultrasoundPainful joint arthroplastyPeriprosthetic joint infection

Identifiers

PMID35624311
OpenAlexW4281914411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.