OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of standard and macro-radiography for quantifying cancellous bone differences between subjects with and without medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Patients with medial compartment knee OA (n=24) and non-OA reference subjects (n=10) had a standard and a macro-radiograph (x4 magnification) of one knee. Fractal Signature Analysis (FSA), a computerised image analysis technique, measured differences in cancellous bone structure between OA and non-OA tibiae in all radiographs. RESULTS: Compared to non-OA, FSA of vertical trabeculae in macro-radiographs increased significantly (P<0.05) in the OA group at several trabecular widths (0.30-0.60mm, 0.7 mm, 0.98-1.14 mm) and in standard radiographs at a single trabecular width (0.48 mm). CONCLUSION: Compared to standard radiography, increased spatial resolution of macro-radiography allowed greater detection of trabecular bone differences between OA and non-OA knees. Nonetheless, difference was also detected in standard radiographs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity of standard and macro-radiography for quantifying cancellous bone differences between subjects with and without medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS:Patients with medial compartment knee OA (n=24) and non-OA reference subjects (n=10) had a standard and a macro-radiograph (x4 magnification) of one knee. Fractal Signature Analysis (FSA), a computerised image analysis technique, measured differences in cancellous bone structure between OA and non-OA tibiae in all radiographs. RESULTS: Compared to non-OA, FSA of vertical trabeculae in macro-radiographs increased significantly (P<0.05) in the OA group at several trabecular widths (0.30-0.60mm, 0.7 mm, 0.98-1.14 mm) and in standard radiographs at a single trabecular width (0.48 mm). CONCLUSION: Compared to standard radiography, increased spatial resolution of macro-radiography allowed greater detection of trabecular bone differences between OA and non-OA knees. Nonetheless, difference was also detected in standard radiographs.
Authors: P Podsiadlo; M C Nevitt; M Wolski; G W Stachowiak; J A Lynch; I Tolstykh; D T Felson; N A Segal; C E Lewis; M Englund Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Virginia Byers Kraus; Sheng Feng; ShengChu Wang; Scott White; Maureen Ainslie; Alan Brett; Anthony Holmes; H Cecil Charles Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2009-12
Authors: Markus Kraiger; Petros Martirosian; Peter Opriessnig; Frank Eibofner; Hansjoerg Rempp; Michael Hofer; Fritz Schick; Rudolf Stollberger Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: J Hirvasniemi; J Thevenot; V Immonen; T Liikavainio; P Pulkkinen; T Jämsä; J Arokoski; S Saarakkala Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Jukka Hirvasniemi; Jérôme Thevenot; Harri T Kokkonen; Mikko A Finnilä; Mikko S Venäläinen; Timo Jämsä; Rami K Korhonen; Juha Töyräs; Simo Saarakkala Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Jukka Hirvasniemi; Jérôme Thevenot; Ali Guermazi; Jana Podlipská; Frank W Roemer; Miika T Nieminen; Simo Saarakkala Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315