OBJECTIVE: Erosive osteoarthritis is usually considered as an inflammatory subset of osteoarthritis (OA). However, an inflammatory component is now recognised in all subsets of OA, so this subgroup of erosive or inflammatory OA is more difficult to conceptualise. The aim of this study was to compare routine CR and MRI to investigate erosion numbers and morphology to determine whether hand OA in general is a more erosive disease than previously recognised. DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with clinical (OA) of the small joints of the hand underwent MRI of one of the affected proximal interphalangeal (PIP) or distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints. Conventional radiographs (CR) of the hand were also obtained. The MR images were reviewed by two observers for the presence of central and marginal erosions. The site and morphology of any erosions was recorded. CR images of the same hand joint were scored independently for central and marginal erosions by the same observers. RESULTS: There was 100% agreement between the observers for scoring erosions on CR. Agreement for the MRI scores was also excellent (kappa = 0.84). MRI detected 37 erosions, of which only 9 were seen on CR. The increase in sensitivity using MRI was much greater for marginal erosions (1 detected on CR, 19 on MRI) than for central erosions (8 on CR, 18 on MRI). Using MRI 80% of joints examined showed 1 or more erosions compared with 40% using CR. If only marginal erosions were considered 80% of joints were still considered erosive by MRI criteria, but only 1 showed evidence of erosion on CR. Morphologically central erosions appeared to represent areas of subchondral collapse and pressure atrophy. In contrast, marginal erosions resembled those seen in inflammatory arthritides. CONCLUSION: Erosions, and particularly marginal erosions typical of those seen in inflammatory arthritis, are a more common feature of small joint OA than conventional radiographs have previously indicated.
OBJECTIVE: Erosive osteoarthritis is usually considered as an inflammatory subset of osteoarthritis (OA). However, an inflammatory component is now recognised in all subsets of OA, so this subgroup of erosive or inflammatory OA is more difficult to conceptualise. The aim of this study was to compare routine CR and MRI to investigate erosion numbers and morphology to determine whether hand OA in general is a more erosive disease than previously recognised. DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with clinical (OA) of the small joints of the hand underwent MRI of one of the affected proximal interphalangeal (PIP) or distal interphalangeal (DIP) joints. Conventional radiographs (CR) of the hand were also obtained. The MR images were reviewed by two observers for the presence of central and marginal erosions. The site and morphology of any erosions was recorded. CR images of the same hand joint were scored independently for central and marginal erosions by the same observers. RESULTS: There was 100% agreement between the observers for scoring erosions on CR. Agreement for the MRI scores was also excellent (kappa = 0.84). MRI detected 37 erosions, of which only 9 were seen on CR. The increase in sensitivity using MRI was much greater for marginal erosions (1 detected on CR, 19 on MRI) than for central erosions (8 on CR, 18 on MRI). Using MRI 80% of joints examined showed 1 or more erosions compared with 40% using CR. If only marginal erosions were considered 80% of joints were still considered erosive by MRI criteria, but only 1 showed evidence of erosion on CR. Morphologically central erosions appeared to represent areas of subchondral collapse and pressure atrophy. In contrast, marginal erosions resembled those seen in inflammatory arthritides. CONCLUSION: Erosions, and particularly marginal erosions typical of those seen in inflammatory arthritis, are a more common feature of small joint OA than conventional radiographs have previously indicated.
Authors: M Backhaus; G R Burmester; D Sandrock; D Loreck; D Hess; A Scholz; S Blind; B Hamm; M Bollow Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: M Backhaus; T Kamradt; D Sandrock; D Loreck; J Fritz; K J Wolf; H Raber; B Hamm; G R Burmester; M Bollow Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1999-06
Authors: D M van der Heijde; M A van Leeuwen; P L van Riel; A M Koster; M A van 't Hof; M H van Rijswijk; L B van de Putte Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1992-01
Authors: L Jans; T De Coninck; R Wittoek; V Lambrecht; W Huysse; G Verbruggen; K Verstraete Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Robert A Colbert; Atul A Deodhar; David Fox; Ellen M Gravallese; Muhammad Asim Khan; Dennis McGonagle; John D Reveille; Georg Schett; Michael Weisman; Daniel O Clegg Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.666