Literature DB >> 24221452

Regional depth-specific subchondral bone density measures in osteoarthritic and normal patellae: in vivo precision and preliminary comparisons.

W D Burnett1, S A Kontulainen, C E McLennan, D J Hunter, D R Wilson, J D Johnston.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: Computed tomography-based depth-specific image processing is able to precisely identify regional differences between healthy patellae and patellae with osteoarthritis.
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the precision errors and potential differences in regional, depth-specific subchondral bone mineral density (BMD) in normal and osteoarthritic (OA) human patellae in vivo using CT-based density analyses.
METHODS: Fourteen participants (2 men and 12 women; mean age, 51.4; SD, 11.8 years) were scanned using clinical quantitative CT (QCT) three times over 2 days. Participants were categorized as either normal (n = 7) or exhibiting radiographic OA (n = 7). Average subchondral BMD was assessed at three depths relative to the subchondral surface. Regional BMD analysis included: total lateral facet BMD, total medial facet BMD, and superior/middle/inferior BMD of lateral and medial facets at normalized depths of 0-2.5, 2.5-5, and 5-7.5 mm from the subchondral surface. We assessed precision using root mean square coefficients of variation (CV%). We evaluated differences between OA and normal BMD by (1) calculating percentage differences between the groups (in relation to normal BMD) (2) relating percentage differences to respective CV% errors and (3) determining effect sizes using Cohen's d.
RESULTS: Root mean square CV% precision errors ranged from 1.1 to 5.9 %. Percentage differences between OA and normal BMD varied from -1.6 to -30.1 % (BMD lower in OA patellae). In relation to precision errors, percentage differences were, on average, 5.5× greater than CV% errors. Cohen's d effect sizes ranged from -1.7 to -0.1. Largest differences were noted at depths of 2.5-5 and 5-7.5 mm from the subchondral surface.
CONCLUSIONS: Patellar subchondral BMD measures were precise (average CV%, ≤3 %). This region- and depth-specific CT-based imaging tool characterized regional standardized BMD differences between normal and OA patellae in vivo.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24221452     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-013-2568-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  31 in total

1.  Bone strength: the bottom line.

Authors:  T A Einhorn
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.333

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.  Analyzing cortical bone cross-sectional geometry by peripheral QCT: comparison with bone histomorphometry.

Authors:  Saija Kontulainen; Danmei Liu; Sarah Manske; Miranda Jamieson; Harri Sievänen; Heather McKay
Journal:  J Clin Densitom       Date:  2007 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  Thickness of the subchondral mineralised tissue zone (SMZ) in normal male and female and pathological human patellae.

Authors:  F Eckstein; S Milz; H Anetzberger; R Putz
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.610

5.  Linear measurements of cortical bone and dental enamel by computed tomography: applications and problems.

Authors:  C F Spoor; F W Zonneveld; G A Macho
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.868

6.  Radiographic patterns of osteoarthritis of the knee joint in the community: the importance of the patellofemoral joint.

Authors:  T E McAlindon; S Snow; C Cooper; P A Dieppe
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 19.103

Review 7.  Fundamentals and pitfalls of bone densitometry using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).

Authors:  Nelson B Watts
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2004-08-21       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  Increased acetabular subchondral bone density is associated with cam-type femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  A D Speirs; P E Beaulé; K S Rakhra; M E Schweitzer; H Frei
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2013-01-26       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 9.  Patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis: an important subgroup of knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  R S Hinman; K M Crossley
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2007-05-11       Impact factor: 7.580

10.  How do pain and function vary with compartmental distribution and severity of radiographic knee osteoarthritis?

Authors:  R Duncan; G Peat; E Thomas; L Wood; E Hay; P Croft
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 7.580

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Functional imaging in OA: role of imaging in the evaluation of tissue biomechanics.

Authors:  C P Neu
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 6.576

2.  Virtual monoenergetic images from photon-counting spectral computed tomography to assess knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Christine Chappard; Juan Abascal; Cécile Olivier; Salim Si-Mohamed; Loic Boussel; Jean Baptiste Piala; Philippe Douek; Francoise Peyrin
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2022-02-22

3.  Patella bone density is lower in knee osteoarthritis patients experiencing moderate-to-severe pain at rest.

Authors:  W Burnett; S Kontulainen; C McLennan; D Hazel; C Talmo; D Hunter; D Wilson; J Johnston
Journal:  J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.041

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.