OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiography are established imaging modalities for the assessment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of our study was to compare the responsiveness of radiographic joint space width (JSW) with MRI-derived measures of cartilage morphometry for OA progression in participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). METHODS: This study examined the baseline and 12-month visits of a subset of 150 subjects from the OAI. Measurement of radiographic JSW was facilitated by the use of automated software that delineated the femoral and tibial margins of the joint. Measures of medial compartment minimum JSW and JSW at fixed locations were compared with cartilage morphometry measures derived from MRI. The results were stratified by Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) scale grade and by tibiofemoral anatomic axis angle. In order to examine the relative responsiveness of various techniques, we calculated the standardized response mean (SRM) between the 2 visits. RESULTS: The SRM for radiographic JSW measured at the optimal location was -0.32 compared with -0.39 for the most responsive MRI measure. For the subgroup with a K/L scale grade of 2 or 3, the most responsive SRM values were -0.34 for radiographic JSW and -0.42 for MRI. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that new measures using a software analysis of digital knee radiographic images are comparable with MRI in detecting OA progression, and potentially superior when considering the cost-effectiveness of the 2 imaging modalities.
OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiography are established imaging modalities for the assessment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of our study was to compare the responsiveness of radiographic joint space width (JSW) with MRI-derived measures of cartilage morphometry for OA progression in participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). METHODS: This study examined the baseline and 12-month visits of a subset of 150 subjects from the OAI. Measurement of radiographic JSW was facilitated by the use of automated software that delineated the femoral and tibial margins of the joint. Measures of medial compartment minimum JSW and JSW at fixed locations were compared with cartilage morphometry measures derived from MRI. The results were stratified by Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) scale grade and by tibiofemoral anatomic axis angle. In order to examine the relative responsiveness of various techniques, we calculated the standardized response mean (SRM) between the 2 visits. RESULTS: The SRM for radiographic JSW measured at the optimal location was -0.32 compared with -0.39 for the most responsive MRI measure. For the subgroup with a K/L scale grade of 2 or 3, the most responsive SRM values were -0.34 for radiographic JSW and -0.42 for MRI. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that new measures using a software analysis of digital knee radiographic images are comparable with MRI in detecting OA progression, and potentially superior when considering the cost-effectiveness of the 2 imaging modalities.
Authors: Eric Vignon; Muriel Piperno; Marie-Pierre Hellio Le Graverand; Steven A Mazzuca; Kenneth D Brandt; Pierre Mathieu; Huguett Favret; Martine Vignon; Florence Merle-Vincent; Thierry Conrozier Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2003-02
Authors: Manish Kothari; Ali Guermazi; Gabriele von Ingersleben; Yves Miaux; Martine Sieffert; Jon E Block; Randall Stevens; Charles G Peterfy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-05-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: R Altman; K Brandt; M Hochberg; R Moskowitz; N Bellamy; D A Bloch; J Buckwalter; M Dougados; G Ehrlich; M Lequesne; S Lohmander; W A Murphy; T Rosario-Jansen; B Schwartz; S Trippel Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: I H Song; C E Althoff; K G Hermann; A K Scheel; T Knetsch; M Schoenharting; C Werner; G R Burmester; M Backhaus Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: C G Peterfy; C F van Dijke; D L Janzen; C C Glüer; R Namba; S Majumdar; P Lang; H K Genant Journal: Radiology Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kate L Lapane; Shibing Yang; Jeffrey B Driban; Shao-Hsien Liu; Catherine E Dubé; Timothy E McAlindon; Charles B Eaton Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Bing Lu; Jeffrey B Driban; Chang Xu; Kate L Lapane; Timothy E McAlindon; Charles B Eaton Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Mayank Dineshkumar Kothari; Kaitlin G Rabe; Donald D Anderson; Michael C Nevitt; John A Lynch; Neil A Segal; Hayden Franz Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Morgan H Jones; Kurt P Spindler; Jack T Andrish; Charles L Cox; Warren R Dunn; Jeff Duryea; Carol L Duong; David C Flanigan; Braden C Fleming; Laura J Huston; Christopher C Kaeding; Matthew J Matava; Nancy A Obuchowski; Heidi L Oksendahl; Richard D Parker; Erica A Scaramuzza; Matthew V Smith; Carl S Winalski; Rick W Wright; Emily K Reinke Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 6.202