AC Portal
Document Navigator

Osteonecrosis

Variant: 1   Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest Usually Appropriate Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
Bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 2   Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT area of interest without IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) Varies
Bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Variant: 3   Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CT area of interest without IV contrast Usually Appropriate Varies
MR arthrography area of interest Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
Bone scan area of interest Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate Varies

Panel Members
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

  • There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

OR

  • There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
A. Radiography Area of Interest
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
B. Bone Scan Area of Interest
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
C. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
D. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
E. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast
Variant 1: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Initial imaging.
G. MRI Area of Interest Without IV Contrast
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
A. Bone Scan Area of Interest
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
B. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
C. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
D. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
E. MRI Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast
Variant 2: Clinically suspected osteonecrosis. Normal radiographs or radiographs that show findings suspicious for osteonecrosis. Next imaging study.
F. MRI Area of Interest Without IV Contrast
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
A. Bone Scan Area of Interest
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
B. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
C. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
D. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
E. MR Arthrography Area of Interest
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
F. MRI Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast
Variant 3: Known osteonecrosis with articular collapse by radiographs. Surgery planned. Next imaging study.
G. MRI Area of Interest Without IV Contrast
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References
1. Shah KN, Racine J, Jones LC, Aaron RK. Pathophysiology and risk factors for osteonecrosis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:201-9.
2. Heinen AK, Harris TG. Avascular Necrosis of the Tibial Plafond Following Rotational Ankle Fractures. [Review]. Foot Ankle Clin. 24(1):113-119, 2019 Mar.
3. Hernigou P, Hernigou J, Scarlat M. Shoulder Osteonecrosis: Pathogenesis, Causes, Clinical Evaluation, Imaging, and Classification. [Review]. Orthopaedic Audio-Synopsis Continuing Medical Education [Sound Recording]. 12(5):1340-1349, 2020 Oct.
4. Mont MA, Cherian JJ, Sierra RJ, Jones LC, Lieberman JR. Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: Where Do We Stand Today? A Ten-Year Update. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:1604-27.
5. Murphey MD, Foreman KL, Klassen-Fischer MK, Fox MG, Chung EM, Kransdorf MJ. From the radiologic pathology archives imaging of osteonecrosis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2014;34(4):1003-1028.
6. Barille MF, Wu JS, McMahon CJ. Femoral head avascular necrosis: a frequently missed incidental finding on multidetector CT. Clin Radiol. 69(3):280-5, 2014 Mar.
7. Rolston VS, Patel AV, Learch TJ, et al. Prevalence and Associations of Avascular Necrosis of the Hip in a Large Well-characterized Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease. J. clin. rheumatol.. 25(1):45-49, 2019 Jan.
8. Cohen-Rosenblum A, Cui Q. Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. [Review]. Orthop Clin North Am. 50(2):139-149, 2019 Apr.
9. Hernigou P, Flouzat-Lachaniette CH, Daltro G, Galacteros F. Talar Osteonecrosis Related to Adult Sickle Cell Disease: Natural Evolution from Early to Late Stages. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 98(13):1113-21, 2016 Jul 06.
10. Niinimaki R, Suo-Palosaari M, Pokka T, Harila-Saari A, Niinimaki T. The radiological and clinical follow-up of osteonecrosis in cancer patients. Acta Oncol. 58(4):505-511, 2019 Apr.
11. Issa K, Naziri Q, Kapadia BH, Lamm BM, Jones LC, Mont MA. Clinical characteristics of early-stage osteonecrosis of the ankle and treatment outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 96(9):e73, 2014 May 07.
12. Nawata K, Nakamura J, Hagiwara S, et al. Predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging for multifocal osteonecrosis screening associated with glucocorticoid therapy. Modern Rheumatology. 30(3):586-591, 2020 May.
13. Nam KW, Kim YL, Yoo JJ, Koo KH, Yoon KS, Kim HJ. Fate of untreated asymptomatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):477-484.
14. Sakai T, Sugano N, Nishii T, Hananouchi T, Yoshikawa H. Extent of osteonecrosis on MRI predicts humeral head collapse. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1074-80.
15. Mont MA, Marulanda GA, Jones LC, et al. Systematic analysis of classification systems for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88 Suppl 3:16-26.
16. Ajmal M, Matas AJ, Kuskowski M, Cheng EY. Does statin usage reduce the risk of corticosteroid-related osteonecrosis in renal transplant population? The Orthopedic clinics of North America 2009;40:235-9.
17. Cao F, Liu G, Wang W, et al. Combined Treatment with an Anticoagulant and a Vasodilator Prevents Steroid-Associated Osteonecrosis of Rabbit Femoral Heads by Improving Hypercoagulability. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:1624074.
18. Yuan HF, Guo CA, Yan ZQ. The use of bisphosphonate in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:295-9.
19. Banerjee S, Issa K, Pivec R, Kapadia BH, Khanuja HS, Mont MA. Osteonecrosis of the hip: treatment options and outcomes. The Orthopedic clinics of North America 2013;44:463-76.
20. Hernandez A, Nunez JH, Sallent A, Gargallo-Margarit A, Gallardo-Calero I, Barro V. Core Decompression Combined with Implantation of Autologous Bone Marrow Concentrate with Tricalcium Phosphate Does Not Prevent Radiographic Progression in Early Stage Osteonecrosis of the Hip. Clin. orthop. surg.. 12(2):151-157, 2020 Jun.
21. Larson E, Jones LC, Goodman SB, Koo KH, Cui Q. Early-stage osteonecrosis of the femoral head: where are we and where are we going in year 2018? Int Orthop 2018;42:1723-28.
22. Pierce TP, Jauregui JJ, Elmallah RK, Lavernia CJ, Mont MA, Nace J. A current review of core decompression in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:228-32.
23. Kim SJ, Kang DG, Park SB, Kim JH. Is Hemiresurfacing Arthroplasty for Osteonecrosis of the Hip a Viable Solution? The Journal of arthroplasty 2015;30:987-92.
24. Zalavras CG, Lieberman JR. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014;22:455-64.
25. Rubin DA, Roberts CC, Bencardino JT, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Wrist Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S39-S55.
26. Tafur M, Bencardino JT, Roberts CC, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Chronic Foot Pain. J Am Coll Radiol 2020;17:S391-S402.
27. Cheng W, Xian H, Wang L, et al. Frog leg lateral view is a reliable predictor of the prognosis in osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Orthop Res 2020.
28. Choi HR, Steinberg ME, E YC. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head: diagnosis and classification systems. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:210-20.
29. Beltran J, Herman LJ, Burk JM, et al. Femoral head avascular necrosis: MR imaging with clinical-pathologic and radionuclide correlation. Radiology 1988;166:215-20.
30. Ryu JS, Kim JS, Moon DH, et al. Bone SPECT is more sensitive than MRI in the detection of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head after renal transplantation. J Nucl Med. 2002;43(8):1006-1011.
31. Dasa V, Adbel-Nabi H, Anders MJ, Mihalko WM. F-18 fluoride positron emission tomography of the hip for osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1081-6.
32. Kim JW, Ryu JS, Baek S, Byun SE, Chang JS. The timing of bone SPECT to predict osteonecrosis after internal fixation of femur neck fractures. J Orthop Sci 2017;22:457-62.
33. Yoon JY, Lee SJ, Yoon KS, Yoon PW. The diagnostic value of SPECT/CT in predicting the occurrence of osteonecrosis following femoral neck fracture: a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 21(1):517, 2020 Aug 03.
34. An YS, Park S, Jung JY, Suh CH, Kim HA. Clinical characteristics and role of whole-body bone scan in multifocal osteonecrosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 20(1):23, 2019 Jan 15.
35. Cajiao K, Setoain FJ, Peris P. Multifocal Osteonecrosis: The Usefulness of Bone Scintigraphy. J Clin Rheumatol 2020:[E-pub ahead of print].
36. Hauzeur JP, Pasteels JL, Schoutens A, et al. The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(5):641-649.
37. Stevens K, Tao C, Lee SU, et al. Subchondral fractures in osteonecrosis of the femoral head: comparison of radiography, CT, and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Feb;180(2):363-8.
38. Yeh LR, Chen CK, Huang YL, Pan HB, Yang CF. Diagnostic performance of MR imaging in the assessment of subchondral fractures in avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38(6):559-564.
39. Chan WP, Liu YJ, Huang GS, et al. Relationship of idiopathic osteonecrosis of the femoral head to perfusion changes in the proximal femur by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):637-643.
40. Geith T, Niethammer T, Milz S, Dietrich O, Reiser M, Baur-Melnyk A. Transient Bone Marrow Edema Syndrome versus Osteonecrosis: Perfusion Patterns at Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging with High Temporal Resolution Can Allow Differentiation. Radiology. 283(2):478-485, 2017 05.
41. Mueller D, Schaeffeler C, Baum T, et al. Magnetic resonance perfusion and diffusion imaging characteristics of transient bone marrow edema, avascular necrosis and subchondral insufficiency fractures of the proximal femur. Eur J Radiol. 83(10):1862-9, 2014 Oct.
42. Pierce TP, Elmallah RK, Jauregui JJ, Poola S, Mont MA, Delanois RE. A current review of non-vascularized bone grafting in osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:240-5.
43. Zhang YZ, Cao XY, Li XC, et al. Accuracy of MRI diagnosis of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J. ORTHOP. SURG.. 13(1):167, 2018 Jul 04.
44. McDonald MD, Sadigh S, Weber KL, Sebro R. A Rare Case of an Osteolytic Bone-infarct-associated Osteosarcoma: Case Report with Radiographic and Histopathologic Correlation, and Literature Review. Cureus 2018;10:e2777.
45. Stacy GS, Lo R, Montag A. Infarct-Associated Bone Sarcomas: Multimodality Imaging Findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 205(4):W432-41, 2015 Oct.
46. Ahmed N, Sriskandarajah P, Burd C, et al. Detection of avascular necrosis on routine diffusion-weighted whole body MRI in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Radiol. 92(1097):20180822, 2019 May.
47. Albano D, Patti C, La Grutta L, et al. Osteonecrosis detected by whole body magnetic resonance in patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma treated by BEACOPP. Eur Radiol. 27(5):2129-2136, 2017 May.
48. Zhen-Guo H, Min-Xing Y, Xiao-Liang C, et al. Value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for screening multifocal osteonecrosis in patients with polymyositis/dermatomyositis. Br J Radiol. 90(1073):20160780, 2017 May.
49. Lee B, Lim JY, Lee DM, et al. Computed Tomography Staging of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head. Surg Technol Int. 35:417-421, 2019 11 10.
50. Li B, Lei P, Liu H, et al. Clinical value of 3D printing guide plate in core decompression plus porous bioceramics rod placement for the treatment of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J. ORTHOP. SURG.. 13(1):130, 2018 May 30.
51. Hatanaka H, Motomura G, Ikemura S, et al. Volume of hip synovitis detected on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging is associated with disease severity after collapse in osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Skeletal Radiology. 48(8):1193-1200, 2019 Aug.
52. Ha AS, Wells L, Jaramillo D. Importance of sagittal MR imaging in nontraumatic femoral head osteonecrosis in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2008;38(11):1195-1200.
53. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.