Background The prevalence of pseudotumors in patients with large-head metal-on-metal (MOM) THA has been the subject of implant recalls and warnings from various regulatory agencies. To date, there is no consensus on whether ultrasound or MRI is superior for the detection of pseudotumors. Questions/purposes We prospectively compared ultrasound to MRI for pseudotumor detection in an asymptomatic cohort of patients with MOM THAs. We also compared ultrasound to MRI for assessment of pseudotumor growth and progressive soft tissue involvement at a 6-month interval. Methods We enrolled 40 patients with large-head MOM THAs in the study. The mean age was 54 years (range, 34-76 years). The mean time from surgery was 54 months (range, 40-81 months). There were 28 men and 12 women. All patients underwent ultrasound and MRI using slice encoding for metal artifact correction. The gold standard was defined as follows: if both ultrasound and MRI agreed, this was interpreted as concordant and the result was considered accurate. (Toronto, Ontario, Canada). The institution of one or more of the authors (BAH) has received, during the study period, funding from GE Healthcare (Waukesha, WI, USA) and the NIH (Bethesda, MD, USA). One of the authors (DSG) certifies that he or she has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Zimmer, Inc. One of the authors (CPD) certifies that he or she has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Zimmer, Inc, and an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from DePuy Synthes Canada Ltd. One of the authors (BAM) certifies that he or she has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from Zimmer, Inc. The remaining authors (BAH, DFW, BBF) certify that they have no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use. Each author certifies that the human protocol for this investigation was approved by the appropriate ethics committee at his or her institution, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with the ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained. This work was performed at the Departments of Orthopaedics and Radiology, University of British Columbia (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) and at Vancouver General Hospital (Vancouver, British Columbia...