Levent Özçakar1, Hakan Tunç2, Öznur Öken2, Zeliha Ünlü3, Bekir Durmuş4, Özlem Baysal4, Zuhal Altay4, Fatih Tok5, Nuray Akkaya6, Beril Doğu7, Erhan Çapkın8, Ayşenur Bardak9, Alparslan Bayram Çarlı10, Derya Buğdaycı9, Hasan Toktaş11, Demirhan Dıraçoğlu12, Berrin Gündüz9, Belgin Erhan9, Hilal Kocabaş13, Gül Erden14, Zafer Günendi15, Serdar Kesikburun5, Özlem Köroğlu Omaç5, Mehmet Ali Taşkaynatan5, Kazım Şenel16, Mahir Uğur16, Ebru Yılmaz Yalçınkaya9, Kadriye Öneş9, Çiğdem Atan15, Kenan Akgün14, Ayhan Bilgici17, Ömer Kuru17, Salih Özgöçmen18. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey. 2. PMR Clinic, Ankara PMR Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Department of PMR, Celal Bayar University Medical School, Manisa, Turkey. 4. Department of PMR, Inönü University Medical School, Malatya, Turkey. 5. Department of PMR, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey. 6. Department of PMR, Pamukkale University Medical School, Denizli, Turkey. 7. PMR Clinic, Şişli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 8. Department of PMR, Karadeniz Technical University Medical School, Trabzon, Turkey. 9. PMR Clinic, Istanbul PMR Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 10. Department of PMR, GATA Haydarpaşa Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. 11. Department of PMR, Afyon Kocatepe University Medical School, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. 12. Department of PMR, Istanbul University Istanbul Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey. 13. PMR Clinic, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey. 14. Department of PMR, Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey. 15. Department of PMR, Gazi University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey. 16. Department of PMR, Atatürk University Medical School, Erzurum, Turkey. 17. Department of PMR, Ondokuz Mayıs University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. 18. Division of Rheumatology, Department of PMR, Erciyes University Medical School, Kayseri, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Measurement of the femoral cartilage thickness by using in-vivo musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) has been previously shown to be a valid and reliable method in previous studies; however, to our best notice, normative data has not been provided before in the healthy population.The aim of our study was to provide normative data regarding femoral cartilage thicknesses of healthy individuals with collaborative use of MSUS. METHODS: This is across-sectional study run at Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Departments of 18 Secondary and Tertiary Centers in Turkey. 1544 healthy volunteers (aged between 25-40 years) were recruited within the collaboration of TURK-MUSCULUS (Turkish Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography Study Group). Subjects who had a body mass index value of less than 30 and who did not have signs and symptoms of any degenerative/inflammatory arthritis or other rheumatic diseases, history of knee trauma and previous knee surgery were enrolled. Ultrasonographic measurements were performed axially from the suprapatellar window by using linear probes while subjects' knees were in maximum flexion. Three (mid-point) measurements were taken from both knees (lateral condyle, intercondylar area, medial condyle). RESULTS: A total of 2876 knees (of 817 M, 621 F subjects) were taken into analysis after exclusion of inappropriate images. Mean cartilage thicknesses were significantly lower in females than males (all p< 0.001). Thickness values negatively correlated with age; negatively (females) and positively (males) correlated with smoking. Men who regularly exercised had thicker cartilage than who did not exercise (all p < 0.05). Increased age (in both sexes) and absence of exercise (males) were found to be risk factors for decreased cartilage thicknesses. CONCLUSION: Further data pertaining to other countries would be interesting to uncover whether ethnic differences also affect cartilage thickness. Collaborative use of MSUS seems to be promising in this regard.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Measurement of the femoral cartilage thickness by using in-vivo musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) has been previously shown to be a valid and reliable method in previous studies; however, to our best notice, normative data has not been provided before in the healthy population.The aim of our study was to provide normative data regarding femoral cartilage thicknesses of healthy individuals with collaborative use of MSUS. METHODS: This is across-sectional study run at Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Departments of 18 Secondary and Tertiary Centers in Turkey. 1544 healthy volunteers (aged between 25-40 years) were recruited within the collaboration of TURK-MUSCULUS (Turkish Musculoskeletal Ultrasonography Study Group). Subjects who had a body mass index value of less than 30 and who did not have signs and symptoms of any degenerative/inflammatory arthritis or other rheumatic diseases, history of knee trauma and previous knee surgery were enrolled. Ultrasonographic measurements were performed axially from the suprapatellar window by using linear probes while subjects' knees were in maximum flexion. Three (mid-point) measurements were taken from both knees (lateral condyle, intercondylar area, medial condyle). RESULTS: A total of 2876 knees (of 817 M, 621 F subjects) were taken into analysis after exclusion of inappropriate images. Mean cartilage thicknesses were significantly lower in females than males (all p< 0.001). Thickness values negatively correlated with age; negatively (females) and positively (males) correlated with smoking. Men who regularly exercised had thicker cartilage than who did not exercise (all p < 0.05). Increased age (in both sexes) and absence of exercise (males) were found to be risk factors for decreased cartilage thicknesses. CONCLUSION: Further data pertaining to other countries would be interesting to uncover whether ethnic differences also affect cartilage thickness. Collaborative use of MSUS seems to be promising in this regard.
Authors: Matthew S Harkey; J Troy Blackburn; Anthony C Hackney; Michael D Lewek; Randy J Schmitz; Brian Pietrosimone Journal: Cartilage Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Harry M Roberts; Jonathan P Moore; Claire L Griffith-McGeever; Matthew B Fortes; Jeanette M Thom Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Harry M Roberts; Claire L Griffith-McGeever; Julian A Owen; Lewis Angell; Jonathan P Moore; Jeanette M Thom Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-03-13 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Matthew S Harkey; Nicholas Michel; Christopher Kuenze; Ryan Fajardo; Matt Salzler; Jeffrey B Driban; Ilker Hacihaliloglu Journal: Cartilage Date: 2022 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Mohamed A Bedewi; Ayman A Elsifey; Moheyeldeen F Naguib; Ayman K Saleh; Naif Bin Nwihadh; Amr A Abd-Elghany; Sherine M Swify Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 1.671
Authors: Mohamed A Bedewi; Ayman A Elsifey; Moheyeldeen F Naguib; Ayman K Saleh; Sameer Al-Ghamdi; Bader A Alhariqi; Nasser M Aldossary; Elaine S Gould Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.817