OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the quantity of cartilage or semiquantitative scores actually differ in knees with mild radiographic osteoarthritis compared with knees without osteoarthritis. METHODS: Framingham Osteoarthritis Study participants had knee tibiofemoral magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of cartilage. Using three-dimensional FLASH-water excitation sequences, cartilage volume, thickness and subregional cartilage thickness were measured and cartilage scored semiquantitatively (using the whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging score; WORMS). Using weight-bearing radiographs, mild osteoarthritis was defined as Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade 2 and non-osteoarthritis as K/L grade 0. Differences between osteoarthritis and non-osteoarthritis knees in median cartilage measurements were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Among 948 participants (one knee each), neither cartilage volume nor regional thickness were different in mild versus non-osteoarthritis knees. In mild osteoarthritis, cartilage erosions in focal areas were missed when cartilage was quantified over large regions such as the medial tibia. For some but not all subregions of cartilage, especially among men, cartilage thickness was lower (p<0.05) in mild osteoarthritis than non-osteoarthritis knees. Because semiquantitative scores captured focal erosions, median WORMS scores were higher in mild osteoarthritis than non-osteoarthritis (all p<0.05). In moderate/severe osteoarthritis (K/L grades 3 or 4), osteoarthritis knees had much lower cartilage thickness and higher WORMS scores than knees without osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: In mild osteoarthritis, the focal loss of cartilage is missed by quantitative measures of cartilage volume or thickness over broad areas. Regional cartilage volume and thickness (eg, medial tibia) are not different in mild osteoarthritis versus non-osteoarthritis. Subregional thickness may be decreased in mild osteoarthritis. Semiquantitative scoring that assesses focal cartilage damage differentiates mild osteoarthritis from non-osteoarthritis.
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the quantity of cartilage or semiquantitative scores actually differ in knees with mild radiographic osteoarthritis compared with knees without osteoarthritis. METHODS: Framingham Osteoarthritis Study participants had knee tibiofemoral magnetic resonance imaging-based measurements of cartilage. Using three-dimensional FLASH-water excitation sequences, cartilage volume, thickness and subregional cartilage thickness were measured and cartilage scored semiquantitatively (using the whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging score; WORMS). Using weight-bearing radiographs, mild osteoarthritis was defined as Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) grade 2 and non-osteoarthritis as K/L grade 0. Differences between osteoarthritis and non-osteoarthritis knees in median cartilage measurements were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: Among 948 participants (one knee each), neither cartilage volume nor regional thickness were different in mild versus non-osteoarthritis knees. In mild osteoarthritis, cartilage erosions in focal areas were missed when cartilage was quantified over large regions such as the medial tibia. For some but not all subregions of cartilage, especially among men, cartilage thickness was lower (p<0.05) in mild osteoarthritis than non-osteoarthritis knees. Because semiquantitative scores captured focal erosions, median WORMS scores were higher in mild osteoarthritis than non-osteoarthritis (all p<0.05). In moderate/severe osteoarthritis (K/L grades 3 or 4), osteoarthritis knees had much lower cartilage thickness and higher WORMS scores than knees without osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: In mild osteoarthritis, the focal loss of cartilage is missed by quantitative measures of cartilage volume or thickness over broad areas. Regional cartilage volume and thickness (eg, medial tibia) are not different in mild osteoarthritis versus non-osteoarthritis. Subregional thickness may be decreased in mild osteoarthritis. Semiquantitative scoring that assesses focal cartilage damage differentiates mild osteoarthritis from non-osteoarthritis.
Authors: D T Felson; D R Gale; M Elon Gale; J Niu; D J Hunter; J Goggins; M P Lavalley Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2004-09-20 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Shreyasee Amin; Michael P LaValley; Ali Guermazi; Mikayel Grigoryan; David J Hunter; Margaret Clancy; Jingbo Niu; Daniel R Gale; David T Felson Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2005-10
Authors: Felix Eckstein; H Cecil Charles; Robert J Buck; Virginia B Kraus; Ann E Remmers; Martin Hudelmaier; Wolfgang Wirth; Jeffrey L Evelhoch Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2005-10
Authors: Z A Cohen; D M McCarthy; S D Kwak; P Legrand; F Fogarasi; E J Ciaccio; G A Ateshian Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Jeffrey N Masi; Christian A Sell; Catherine Phan; Eric Han; David Newitt; Lynne Steinbach; Sharmila Majumdar; Thomas M Link Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R D Altman; J F Fries; D A Bloch; J Carstens; T D Cooke; H Genant; P Gofton; H Groth; D J McShane; W A Murphy Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1987-11
Authors: Thomas Baum; Christoph Stehling; Gabby B Joseph; Julio Carballido-Gamio; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Christina Müller-Höcker; Michael C Nevitt; John Lynch; Charles E McCulloch; Thomas M Link Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K Douglas Gross; Jingbo Niu; Joshua J Stefanik; Ali Guermazi; Frank W Roemer; Leena Sharma; Michael C Nevitt; Neil A Segal; Cora E Lewis; David T Felson Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: D T Felson; J Lynch; A Guermazi; F W Roemer; J Niu; T McAlindon; M C Nevitt Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: F Eckstein; M Yang; A Guermazi; F W Roemer; M Hudelmaier; K Picha; F Baribaud; W Wirth; D T Felson Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Constance R Chu; Shikha Sheth; Jennifer C Erhart-Hledik; Bao Do; Matthew R Titchenal; Thomas P Andriacchi Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Andrea S Doria; Ningning Zhang; Bjorn Lundin; Pamela Hilliard; Carina Man; Ruth Weiss; Gary Detzler; Victor Blanchette; Rahim Moineddin; Felix Eckstein; Marshall S Sussman Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2014-02-13
Authors: Frank W Roemer; Yuqing Zhang; Jingbo Niu; John A Lynch; Michel D Crema; Monica D Marra; Michael C Nevitt; David T Felson; Laura B Hughes; George Y El-Khoury; Martin Englund; Ali Guermazi Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julien Favre; Sean F Scanlan; Jenifer C Erhart-Hledik; Katerina Blazek; Thomas P Andriacchi Journal: J Biomech Eng Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.097
Authors: Nima Hafezi-Nejad; Ali Guermazi; Frank W Roemer; David J Hunter; Erik B Dam; Bashir Zikria; C Kent Kwoh; Shadpour Demehri Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 5.315