| Literature DB >> 22336331 |
Andrew J Teichtahl1, Anita E Wluka, Boyd J Strauss, Yuanyuan Wang, Patricia Berry, Miranda Davies-Tuck, Flavia M Cicuttini.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that knee height is a determinant of knee joint load. Nonetheless, no study has directly examined the relationship between anthropometric measures of height and knee joint structures, such as cartilage.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22336331 PMCID: PMC3306748 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Figure 1Knee height measurement, Knee height was defined as the distance from the sole of the foot to the most anterior surface of the femoral condyles of the thigh (medial being more anterior), with the ankle and knee each flexed to a 90° angle.
Mean subject demographics, knee height measures and MRI variables
| N = 89 | |
|---|---|
| 47.4 (8.6) [28-62] | |
| 73 (82) | |
| 167.6 (9.1) [152-194] | |
| 90.2 (26.1) [49-164] | |
| 32.2 (9.2) [16.9-51.4] | |
| 51.1 (3.6) [42.8-62.7] | |
| 30.5 (1.2) [26.4-33.9] | |
| 1020 (284) [564-1936] | |
| 1329 (394) [750-2816] | |
| 1893 (232) [1337-2574] | |
| 1458 (220) [1088-2120] | |
| 47 (53) | |
| 79 (89) | |
| 181 (3) [173-191] | |
| 31 (35) |
Results reported as mean (± standard deviation) unless otherwise stated
Results in brackets [x] represent range of continuous variables
The association between anthropometric height measures and tibial cartilage volume, defects and bone area
| Body height | Knee height | Knee height as percentage of body height | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||||
| 16 (11, 20) | <0.001 | 11 (4, 17) | 0.001 | 44 (34, 54) | <0.001 | 37(23 52) | 0.001 | 72 (32, 111) | 0.001 | 50 (14, 87) | 0.007 | |
| 12 (8, 17) | <0.001 | 6 (0, 12) | 0.06 | 36 (25, 47) | <0.001 | 27 (11, 42) | 0.001 | 65 (28, 103) | 0.001 | 43 (7, 79) | 0.002 | |
| 19 (14, 24) | <0.001 | 10 (4, 17) | 0.001 | 51 (38, 64) | <0.001 | 27 (7, 48) | 0.009 | 71 (21, 120) | 0.006 | 11 (-33, 54) | 0.63 | |
| 28 (21, 35) | <0.001 | 12 (3, 21) | 0.009 | 79 (63, 93) | <0.001 | 42 (19, 65) | 0.001 | 129 (62, 195) | <0.001 | 44 (-10, 98) | 0.11 | |
| 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) | 0.31 | 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) | 0.62 | 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) | 0.97 | 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) | 0.29 | 0.8 (0.5, 1.1) | 0.17 | 0.6 (0.4, 1.0) | 0.05 | |
| 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) | 0.99 | 1.0 (0.9, 1.1) | 0.86 | 1.0 (0.8, 1.2) | 0.84 | 0.9 (0.7, 1.3) | 0.59 | 1.1 (0.6, 1.9) | 0.74 | 0.8 (0.4, 1.7) | 0.55 | |
| 1 (0.9, 1.1) | 0.63 | 1.1 (1.0, 1.2) | 0.01 | 1.0 (0.9, 1.2) | 0.53 | 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) | 0.06 | 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) | 0.58 | 1.0 (0.6, 1.5) | 0.94 | |
Bone area (mm2) adjusted for age, gender, weight, static knee angle and presence of tibiofemoral osteophytes (yes/no)
Cartilage volume (mm3) adjusted for age, gender, weight, respective bone area, static knee angle and presence of tibiofemoral osteophytes (yes/no)
Cartilage defects adjusted for age, gender, weight, respective cartilage volume, static knee angle and presence of tibiofemoral osteophytes (yes/no)
MRI osteophytes adjusted for age, gender and BMI.
Results expressed as beta coefficient of regression (95% confidence interval)
2Results expressed as odds ratio (95% confidence interval)