OBJECTIVE: We have previously developed a handheld ultrasound indentation instrument for the diagnosis of cartilage degeneration. The instrument has been demonstrated to be capable of quantifying mechanical and acoustic properties of enzymatically degraded and normal bovine articular cartilage in vitro and in situ. The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of the instrument to distinguish between normal and spontaneously degenerated (e.g., in osteoarthrosis) articular cartilage in vitro. DESIGN: Thirty articular cartilage samples were prepared from the bovine lateral patellae: 19 patellae with different degenerative stages and 11 patellae with visually normal appearance. Cartilage thickness, stiffness (dynamic modulus) and ultrasound reflection from the cartilage surface were measured with the handheld instrument. Subsequently, biomechanical, histological and biochemical reference measurements were conducted. RESULTS: Reproducibility of the measurements with the ultrasound indentation instrument was good. Standardized coefficient of variation was < or =6.1% for thickness, dynamic modulus and reflection coefficient. Linear correlation between the dynamic modulus, measured with the ultrasound indentation instrument, and the reference dynamic modulus was high (r=0.993, n=30, P<0.05). Ultrasound reflection coefficient, as determined from the cartilage surface, showed high linear correlations (typically r(2)>0.64, n=30, P<0.05) with the cartilage composition and histological or mechanical properties. The instrument was superior compared to visual evaluation in detecting tissue degeneration. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the ultrasound indentation technique and instrument may significantly improve the early diagnosis of cartilage degeneration. The results revealed that visual evaluation is insensitive for estimating the structural and mechanical properties of articular cartilage at the initial stages of degeneration.
OBJECTIVE: We have previously developed a handheld ultrasound indentation instrument for the diagnosis of cartilage degeneration. The instrument has been demonstrated to be capable of quantifying mechanical and acoustic properties of enzymatically degraded and normal bovinearticular cartilage in vitro and in situ. The aim of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of the instrument to distinguish between normal and spontaneously degenerated (e.g., in osteoarthrosis) articular cartilage in vitro. DESIGN: Thirty articular cartilage samples were prepared from the bovine lateral patellae: 19 patellae with different degenerative stages and 11 patellae with visually normal appearance. Cartilage thickness, stiffness (dynamic modulus) and ultrasound reflection from the cartilage surface were measured with the handheld instrument. Subsequently, biomechanical, histological and biochemical reference measurements were conducted. RESULTS: Reproducibility of the measurements with the ultrasound indentation instrument was good. Standardized coefficient of variation was < or =6.1% for thickness, dynamic modulus and reflection coefficient. Linear correlation between the dynamic modulus, measured with the ultrasound indentation instrument, and the reference dynamic modulus was high (r=0.993, n=30, P<0.05). Ultrasound reflection coefficient, as determined from the cartilage surface, showed high linear correlations (typically r(2)>0.64, n=30, P<0.05) with the cartilage composition and histological or mechanical properties. The instrument was superior compared to visual evaluation in detecting tissue degeneration. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the ultrasound indentation technique and instrument may significantly improve the early diagnosis of cartilage degeneration. The results revealed that visual evaluation is insensitive for estimating the structural and mechanical properties of articular cartilage at the initial stages of degeneration.
Authors: Petro Julkunen; Esa P Halmesmäki; Jarkko Iivarinen; Lassi Rieppo; Tommi Närhi; Juho Marjanen; Jarno Rieppo; Jari Arokoski; Pieter A Brama; Jukka S Jurvelin; Heikki J Helminen Journal: J Anat Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 2.610
Authors: Joseph M Mansour; Di-Win Marine Gu; Chen-Yuan Chung; Joseph Heebner; Jake Althans; Sarah Abdalian; Mark D Schluchter; Yiying Liu; Jean F Welter Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Ahmad Fadzil Mohd Hani; Dileep Kumar; Aamir Saeed Malik; Raja Mohd Kamil Raja Ahmad; Ruslan Razak; Azman Kiflie Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2014-05-31 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Tytti Niemelä; Tuomas Virén; Jukka Liukkonen; David Argüelles; Nikae C R te Moller; Pia H Puhakka; Jukka S Jurvelin; Riitta-Mari Tulamo; Juha Töyräs Journal: Acta Vet Scand Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 1.695
Authors: Florence de Bont; Nicolai Brill; Robert Schmitt; Markus Tingart; Björn Rath; Thomas Pufe; Holger Jahr; Sven Nebelung Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.411