OBJECTIVES: We assessed the influence of patient positioning and radiographic procedure, and defined a smallest detectable difference (SDD) in hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: OA hip patients each had a standardized pelvic radiograph and, 5 min later, a modified pelvic radiograph with the feet internally rotated 5 degrees (part 1 of the study), the X-ray beam centred on the umbilicus (part 2), or another standardized pelvic radiograph (part 3). RESULTS: Corresponding mean differences in joint space width (JSW) measurements (limits of agreement) between views were +0.03 (-0.53 to +0.59), -0.31 (-1.15 to +0.53) and -0.02 (-0.48 to +0.44) mm. The two views differed significantly in mean JSW in part 2 of the study (P=1.6x10(-4)), but not in part 1 (P=0.375) and part 3 (P=0.580). The SDD estimate was 0.46 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Modifying the X-ray beam and foot rotation increases variability in JSW measurements. Use of urograms to evaluate radiological progression should be avoided. A change greater than 0.46 mm could define radiological hip OA progression.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the influence of patient positioning and radiographic procedure, and defined a smallest detectable difference (SDD) in hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: OA hip patients each had a standardized pelvic radiograph and, 5 min later, a modified pelvic radiograph with the feet internally rotated 5 degrees (part 1 of the study), the X-ray beam centred on the umbilicus (part 2), or another standardized pelvic radiograph (part 3). RESULTS: Corresponding mean differences in joint space width (JSW) measurements (limits of agreement) between views were +0.03 (-0.53 to +0.59), -0.31 (-1.15 to +0.53) and -0.02 (-0.48 to +0.44) mm. The two views differed significantly in mean JSW in part 2 of the study (P=1.6x10(-4)), but not in part 1 (P=0.375) and part 3 (P=0.580). The SDD estimate was 0.46 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Modifying the X-ray beam and foot rotation increases variability in JSW measurements. Use of urograms to evaluate radiological progression should be avoided. A change greater than 0.46 mm could define radiological hip OA progression.
Authors: P Ornetti; K Brandt; M-P Hellio-Le Graverand; M Hochberg; D J Hunter; M Kloppenburg; N Lane; J-F Maillefert; S A Mazzuca; T Spector; G Utard-Wlerick; E Vignon; M Dougados Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: G E Gold; F Cicuttini; M D Crema; F Eckstein; A Guermazi; R Kijowski; T M Link; E Maheu; J Martel-Pelletier; C G Miller; J-P Pelletier; C G Peterfy; H G Potter; F W Roemer; D J Hunter Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: J Wesseling; J Dekker; W B van den Berg; S M A Bierma-Zeinstra; M Boers; H A Cats; P Deckers; K J Gorter; P H T G Heuts; W K H A Hilberdink; M Kloppenburg; R G H H Nelissen; F G J Oosterveld; J C M Oostveen; L D Roorda; M A Viergever; S ten Wolde; F P J G Lafeber; J W J Bijlsma Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Nigel K Arden; Nancy E Lane; Neeta Parimi; Kassim M Javaid; Li-Yung Lui; Marc C Hochberg; Michael Nevitt Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-04
Authors: Giancarlo Cavalli Polesello; Tarsila Sato Nakao; Marcelo Cavalheiro de Queiroz; Daniel Daniachi; Walter Ricioli; Rodrigo Pereira Guimarães; Emerson Kiyoshi Honda; Nelson Keiske Ono Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2015-11-16