Literature DB >> 23842574

The diagnostic performance of radiography for detection of osteoarthritis-associated features compared with MRI in hip joints with chronic pain.

Li Xu1, Daichi Hayashi, Ali Guermazi, David J Hunter, Ling Li, Anton Winterstein, Klaus Bohndorf, Frank W Roemer.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiography for the detection of MRI-detected osteoarthritis-associated features in various articular subregions of the hip joint.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with chronic hip pain (mean age, 63.3 ± 9.5 years), who were part of the Hip Osteoarthritis MRI Scoring (HOAMS) cohort, underwent both weight-bearing anteroposterior pelvic radiography and 1.5 T MRI. The HOAMS study was a prospective observational study involving 52 subjects, conducted to develop a semiquantitative MRI scoring system for hip osteoarthritis features. In the present study, eight subjects were excluded because of a lack of radiographic assessment. On radiography, the presence of superior and medial joint space narrowing, superior and inferior acetabular/femoral osteophytes, acetabular subchondral cysts, and bone attrition of femoral head was noted. On MRI, cartilage, osteophytes, subchondral cysts, and bone attrition were evaluated in the corresponding locations. Diagnostic performance of radiography was compared with that of MRI, and the area under curve (AUC) was calculated for each pathological feature.
RESULTS: Compared with MRI, radiography provided high specificity (0.76-0.90) but variable sensitivity (0.44-0.78) for diffuse cartilage damage (using JSN as an indirect marker), femoral osteophytes, acetabular subchondral cysts and bone attrition of the femoral head, and a low specificity (0.42 and 0.58) for acetabular osteophytes. The AUC of radiography for detecting overall diffuse cartilage damage, marginal osteophytes, subchondral cysts and bone attrition was 0.76, 0.78, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance of radiography is good for bone attrition, fair for marginal osteophytes and cartilage damage, but poor for subchondral cysts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23842574     DOI: 10.1007/s00256-013-1675-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Skeletal Radiol        ISSN: 0364-2348            Impact factor:   2.199


  22 in total

Review 1.  Radiographic assessment of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Recommendations: recommended guidelines.

Authors:  E Vignon; T Conrozier; M Piperno; S Richard; Y Carrillon; O Fantino
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.576

2.  Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis.

Authors:  J H KELLGREN; J S LAWRENCE
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1957-12       Impact factor: 19.103

3.  The effects of minor hip flexion, abduction or adduction and x-ray beam angle on the radiographic joint space width of the hip.

Authors:  Berna Goker; Alper Sancak; Seminur Haznedaroglu; Mehmet Arac; Joel A Block
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 4.  Variables associated with the progression of hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alexis A Wright; Chad Cook; J Haxby Abbott
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2009-07-15

Review 5.  An update on the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis with a view to prevention.

Authors:  D T Felson; Y Zhang
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1998-08

Review 6.  Primary osteoarthritis of the hip: etiology and epidemiology.

Authors:  F T Hoaglund; L S Steinbach
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.020

7.  Change in joint space width: hyaline articular cartilage loss or alteration in meniscus?

Authors:  D J Hunter; Y Q Zhang; X Tu; M Lavalley; J B Niu; S Amin; A Guermazi; H Genant; D Gale; D T Felson
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  2006-08

8.  Magnetic resonance imaging of bone destruction in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with radiography.

Authors:  L Poleksic; D Zdravkovic; D Jablanovic; I Watt; G Bacic
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  The relationship of hip joint space to self reported hip pain. A survey of 4.151 subjects of the Copenhagen City Heart Study: the Osteoarthritis Substudy.

Authors:  Steffen Jacobsen; Stig Sonne-Holm; Kjeld Søballe; Peter Gebuhr; Bjarne Lund
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 10.  Why radiography should no longer be considered a surrogate outcome measure for longitudinal assessment of cartilage in knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Ali Guermazi; Frank W Roemer; Deborah Burstein; Daichi Hayashi
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 5.156

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Posterior, Lateral, and Anterior Hip Pain Due to Musculoskeletal Origin: A Narrative Literature Review of History, Physical Examination, and Diagnostic Imaging.

Authors:  Patrick J Battaglia; Kevin D'Angelo; Norman W Kettner
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-10-21

2.  Magnetic resonance arthrography and the prevalence of acetabular labral tears in patients 50 years of age and older.

Authors:  Rohit Jayakar; Alexa Merz; Benjamin Plotkin; Dean Wang; Leanne Seeger; Sharon L Hame
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Association of hip pain with radiographic evidence of hip osteoarthritis: diagnostic test study.

Authors:  Chan Kim; Michael C Nevitt; Jingbo Niu; Mary M Clancy; Nancy E Lane; Thomas M Link; Steven Vlad; Irina Tolstykh; Pia M Jungmann; David T Felson; Ali Guermazi
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-12-02

4.  Best Practices for Chiropractic Management of Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline.

Authors:  Cheryl Hawk; Wayne Whalen; Ronald J Farabaugh; Clinton J Daniels; Amy L Minkalis; David N Taylor; Derek Anderson; Kristian Anderson; Louis S Crivelli; Morgan Cark; Elizabeth Barlow; David Paris; Richard Sarnat; John Weeks
Journal:  J Altern Complement Med       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 2.579

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.