ArticleSkeletal radiology2026
Combined MRI features to assess periprosthetic hip joint infection with STIR SEMAC and MAVRIC at 1.5 T.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study was aimed at identifying MRI findings related to total hip arthroplasty (THAs) infection using coronal STIR with metal artifact reduction sequences (MARS) at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study included all patients with THAs who underwent 1.5 T MRI with MARS from December 2015 to April 2020. Two groups are as follows: an infected group and a non-infected group (including asymptomatic THAs and symptomatic non-infected THAs). MARS were either multi-acquisition with variable-resonance image combination (MAVRIC) or slice encoding for metal artifact correction (SEMAC). Imaging features were evaluated to assess their association with THA infection (including both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of these imaging findings were assessed, and inter-reader agreement (kappa, K) was determined.
resultsSixteen patients with THAs had periprosthetic infection, compared with 46 THAs in the non-infected group. Bone edema extending to adjacent soft tissues, defined as a combination of femoral bone marrow edema, hyperintense cortical signal, periostitis, and overall soft tissue edema, had the greatest diagnostic performance for infection: 15/16(94%) infected THAs and 0/46(0%) non-infected THAs (accuracy = 0.98, sensitivity = 0.94, specificity = 1, p < 0.001 Chi-Square test). This combination, predominant in the infected group (p < 0.001 for all), also demonstrated separately high accuracy (acc = 0.94-1), sensitivity (se = 0.94-1), and specificity (0.94-1). Fistula and fluid collection were highly specific (spe = 1) and accurate (acc = 0.81-0.82), although less sensitive (se = 0.25-0.31, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe combination of femoral bone marrow edema, hyperintense cortical signal, periostitis, and soft tissue edema is accurate in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip joint infection using coronal STIR with MARs at 1.5 T.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41609817What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.