Gabby B Joseph1, Stephanie W Hou2, Lorenzo Nardo2, Ursula Heilmeier2, Michael C Nevitt3, Charles E McCulloch3, Thomas M Link2. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry St, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. gabby.joseph@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry St, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this nested case-control study was to identify baseline, incident, and progressive MRI findings visible on standard MRI clinical sequences that were associated with development of incident knee pain in subjects at risk for OA over a period of 48 months. METHODS: We analyzed 60 case knees developing incident pain (WOMAC(pain) = 0 at baseline and WOMAC(pain) ≥ 5 at 48 months) and 60 control knees (WOMAC(pain) = 0 at baseline and WOMAC(pain) = 0 at 48 months) from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. 3 T knee MRIs were analyzed using a modified WORMS score (cartilage, meniscus, bone marrow) at baseline and after 48 months. Baseline and longitudinal findings were grouped into logistic regression models and compared using likelihood-ratio tests. For each model that was significant, a stepwise elimination was used to isolate significant MRI findings. RESULTS: One baseline MRI finding and three findings that changed from baseline to 48 months were associated with the development of pain: at baseline, the severity of a cartilage lesion in the medial tibia was associated with incident pain--(odds ratio (OR) for incident pain = 3.05; P = 0.030). Longitudinally, an incident effusion (OR = 9.78; P = 0.005), a progressive cartilage lesion of the patella (OR = 4.59; P = 0.009), and an incident medial meniscus tear (OR = 4.91; P = 0.028) were associated with the development of pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that baseline abnormalities of the medial tibia cartilage as well as an incident joint effusion, progressive patella cartilage defects, and an incident medial meniscus tear over 48 months may be associated with incident knee pain. Clinically, this study helps identify MRI findings that are associated with the development of knee pain.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this nested case-control study was to identify baseline, incident, and progressive MRI findings visible on standard MRI clinical sequences that were associated with development of incident knee pain in subjects at risk for OA over a period of 48 months. METHODS: We analyzed 60 case knees developing incident pain (WOMAC(pain) = 0 at baseline and WOMAC(pain) ≥ 5 at 48 months) and 60 control knees (WOMAC(pain) = 0 at baseline and WOMAC(pain) = 0 at 48 months) from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. 3 T knee MRIs were analyzed using a modified WORMS score (cartilage, meniscus, bone marrow) at baseline and after 48 months. Baseline and longitudinal findings were grouped into logistic regression models and compared using likelihood-ratio tests. For each model that was significant, a stepwise elimination was used to isolate significant MRI findings. RESULTS: One baseline MRI finding and three findings that changed from baseline to 48 months were associated with the development of pain: at baseline, the severity of a cartilage lesion in the medial tibia was associated with incident pain--(odds ratio (OR) for incident pain = 3.05; P = 0.030). Longitudinally, an incident effusion (OR = 9.78; P = 0.005), a progressive cartilage lesion of the patella (OR = 4.59; P = 0.009), and an incident medial meniscus tear (OR = 4.91; P = 0.028) were associated with the development of pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that baseline abnormalities of the medial tibia cartilage as well as an incident joint effusion, progressive patella cartilage defects, and an incident medial meniscus tear over 48 months may be associated with incident knee pain. Clinically, this study helps identify MRI findings that are associated with the development of knee pain.
Authors: Curtis W Hayes; David A Jamadar; Gavin W Welch; Mary L Jannausch; Laurie L Lachance; Diana C Capul; MaryFran R Sowers Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: L Torres; D D Dunlop; C Peterfy; A Guermazi; P Prasad; K W Hayes; J Song; S Cahue; A Chang; M Marshall; L Sharma Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2006-05-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Peter R Kornaat; Johan L Bloem; Ruth Y T Ceulemans; Naghmeh Riyazi; Frits R Rosendaal; Rob G Nelissen; Wayne O Carter; Marie-Pierre Hellio Le Graverand; Margreet Kloppenburg Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C G Peterfy; A Guermazi; S Zaim; P F J Tirman; Y Miaux; D White; M Kothari; Y Lu; K Fye; S Zhao; H K Genant Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Benedikt J Schwaiger; John Mbapte Wamba; Alexandra S Gersing; Michael C Nevitt; Luca Facchetti; Charles E McCulloch; Thomas M Link Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Gabby B Joseph; Charles E McCulloch; Michael C Nevitt; Alexandra S Gersing; Benedikt J Schwaiger; Martin Kretzschmar; Ursula Heilmeier; Thomas M Link Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Valentina Pedoia; Berk Norman; Sarah N Mehany; Matthew D Bucknor; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Anna Wisser; Andreas Lapper; Frank Roemer; David Fuerst; Susanne Maschek; Wolfgang Wirth; Georg N Duda; Felix Eckstein Journal: Cartilage Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Jingsong Wang; Karina T Wright; Jade Perry; Bernhard Tins; Timothy Hopkins; Charlotte Hulme; Helen S McCarthy; Ashley Brown; James B Richardson Journal: Cell Transplant Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 4.064