Background Various diagnostic modalities are available to assess the problematic knee arthroplasty. Visualization of soft‐tissue structures in relation to the arthroplasty and bone remains difficult. Recent developments in MRI sequences could make MRI a viable addition to the diagnostic arsenal. Purpose To review the diagnostic properties of MRI, to identify certain causes of complaints that may be directly related to implant failure of total (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA); infection, loosening and wear, instability, malalignment, arthrofibrosis, or patellofemoral problems. Study Type Systematic review. Population Twenty‐three studies were included: 16 TKA, four UKA, and three cadaveric studies. Causes of knee arthroplasty complaints analyzed were; infection (three), loosening and wear (11), malalignment (five) and instability (four). Field Strength and Sequences No field strength or sequence restrictions. Assessment PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE were searched. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 (QUADAS‐2). Statistical Tests The results of the original research articles are stated. Results Fifteen studies assessed the reproducibility of analyzing infection, loosening and wear, and malalignment. Fourteen of 15 studies were deemed as adequate to good quality. Results showed a moderate to excellent agreement (ICC/K 0.55–0.97). Fourteen studies addressed the accuracy. For infection and loosening and wear the sensitivity and specificity estimates varied between 0.85–0.97 and 0.70–1.00, respectively. The accuracy for malalignment was excellent (r ≥ 0.81). For these studies QUADAS‐2 analysis suggested few risks of bias. A meta‐analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data. Data Conclusion This study supports that MRI can be used with overall reproducible and accurate results for diagnosing infection, loosening and wear, and malalignment after knee arthroplasty. Nonetheless, studies regarding the diagnosis of instability, arthrofibrosis or patellofemoral complaints using MRI are limited and inconclusive. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:446–458.

Purpose: Low-field MRI, allowing imaging in supine and weight-bearing position, may be utilized as a non-invasive and affordable tool to differentiate between causes of dissatisfaction after TKA ('problematic TKA'). However, it remains unclear whether low-field MRI results in sufficient image quality with limited metal artefacts. Therefore, this feasibility study explored the diagnostic value of low-field MRI concerning pathologies associated with problematic TKA's' by comparing low-field MRI findings with CT and surgical findings. Secondly, differences in patellofemoral parameters between supine and weight-bearing low-field MRI were evaluated. Methods: Eight patients with a problematic TKA were scanned using low-field MRI in weight-bearing and supine conditions. Six of these patients underwent revision surgery. Scans were analysed by a radiologist for pathologies associated with a problematic TKA. Additional patellofemoral and alignment parameters were measured by an imaging expert. MRI observations were compared to those obtained with CT, the diagnosis based on the clinical work-up, and findings during revision surgery. Results: MRI observations of rotational malalignment, component loosening and patellofemoral arthrosis were comparable with the clinical diagnosis (six out of eight) and were confirmed during surgery (four out of six). All MRI observations were in line with CT findings (seven out of seven). Clinical diagnosis and surgical findings of collateral excessive laxity could not be confirmed with MRI (two out of eight). Conclusion: Low-field MRI shows comparable diagnostic value as CT and might be a future low cost and ionizing radiation free alternative. Differences between supine and weight-bearing MRI did not yield clinically relevant information. The study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committees of Twente (Netherlands Trial Register: Trial NL7009 (NTR7207). Registered 5 March 2018, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7009).