T R McCauley1, P R Kornaat, W H Jee. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St., Rm. MRC 147, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and location of central osteophytes in patients referred for MR imaging of the knee and the relationship of central osteophytes to articular cartilage defects, marginal osteophytes, meniscal tears, and anterior cruciate ligament tears as seen on MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred consecutive patients referred for MR imaging of the knee were evaluated for central osteophytes, articular cartilage defects, marginal osteophytes, meniscal tears, and anterior cruciate ligament tears. A 1.5-T scanner was used, and assessments were made by consensus of two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. Seven patients were excluded, leaving 193 patients in the study population. RESULTS: The prevalence of central osteophytes in the knee was 15% (35 central osteophytes in 29 patients). Patients with central osteophytes were older (mean age, 52 years versus 38 years), weighed more (mean weight, 204 lb [92 kg] versus 174 lb [78 kg]), had more articular cartilage defects (mean, 4.3 versus 1.3), and had more marginal osteophytes (mean, 3.9 versus 1.1) than patients without central osteophytes (p < 0.0001, Student's t test). Patients with central osteophytes were more likely to have a meniscal tear (p = 0.004, chi-square test), but they were not more likely to have an anterior cruciate ligament tear. All central osteophytes were associated with articular cartilage defects at the same location, which were full or near-full thickness on MR imaging for 32 of 35 central osteophytes. CONCLUSION: Central osteophytes are common in patients referred for MR imaging of the knee. When central osteophytes are seen in the knee there is a high likelihood of an associated full thickness or near-full thickness articular cartilage defect.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and location of central osteophytes in patients referred for MR imaging of the knee and the relationship of central osteophytes to articular cartilage defects, marginal osteophytes, meniscal tears, and anterior cruciate ligament tears as seen on MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred consecutive patients referred for MR imaging of the knee were evaluated for central osteophytes, articular cartilage defects, marginal osteophytes, meniscal tears, and anterior cruciate ligament tears. A 1.5-T scanner was used, and assessments were made by consensus of two experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. Seven patients were excluded, leaving 193 patients in the study population. RESULTS: The prevalence of central osteophytes in the knee was 15% (35 central osteophytes in 29 patients). Patients with central osteophytes were older (mean age, 52 years versus 38 years), weighed more (mean weight, 204 lb [92 kg] versus 174 lb [78 kg]), had more articular cartilage defects (mean, 4.3 versus 1.3), and had more marginal osteophytes (mean, 3.9 versus 1.1) than patients without central osteophytes (p < 0.0001, Student's t test). Patients with central osteophytes were more likely to have a meniscal tear (p = 0.004, chi-square test), but they were not more likely to have an anterior cruciate ligament tear. All central osteophytes were associated with articular cartilage defects at the same location, which were full or near-full thickness on MR imaging for 32 of 35 central osteophytes. CONCLUSION: Central osteophytes are common in patients referred for MR imaging of the knee. When central osteophytes are seen in the knee there is a high likelihood of an associated full thickness or near-full thickness articular cartilage defect.
Authors: P K Saha; G Liang; J M Elkins; A Coimbra; L T Duong; D S Williams; M Sonka Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Martin Kretzschmar; Ursula Heilmeier; Sarah C Foreman; Gabby B Joseph; Charles E McCulloch; Michael C Nevitt; Thomas M Link Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2019-02-09 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: A Boyde; G R Davis; D Mills; T Zikmund; T M Cox; V L Adams; A Niker; P J Wilson; J P Dillon; L R Ranganath; N Jeffery; J C Jarvis; J A Gallagher Journal: J Anat Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: Peter R Kornaat; Ruth Y T Ceulemans; Herman M Kroon; Naghmeh Riyazi; Margreet Kloppenburg; Wayne O Carter; Thasia G Woodworth; Johan L Bloem Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2004-10-08 Impact factor: 2.199