Tadashi Okano1,2, Emilio Filippucci3, Marco Di Carlo1, Antonella Draghessi1, Marina Carotti4, Fausto Salaffi1, Gary Wright5, Walter Grassi1. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ospedale "C. Urbani", Ancona, Italy. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ospedale "C. Urbani", Ancona, Italy emilio_filippucci@yahoo.it. 4. Department of Radiology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. 5. Department of Rheumatology, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to compare ultrasonography (US) with conventional radiography for the assessment of joint damage in knee OA. METHODS: A total of 166 knees of 84 patients (59 women and 25 men) with primary knee OA were included in this study. The femoral hyaline cartilage of the medial para-patellar aspect and the osteophytes of both the medial and lateral femoral condyle were assessed. The cartilage and osteophytes were both quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. The US assessment was feature-specifically compared with conventional radiography. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between the radiographic medial tibiofemoral narrowing grade and the US medial cartilage grade (rs = 0.7144, 95% CI: 0.6218, 0.7873, P < 0.0001). In the detailed analysis, US could assess cartilage damage more correctly by using the direct visualization technique. A strong correlation was also found between the radiographic and the US medial femoral osteophyte grade (rs = 0.7515, 95% CI: 0.6659, 0.8176, P < 0.0001) and between the radiographic and the US lateral femoral osteophyte grade (rs = 0.6947, 95% CI: 0.5941, 0.7739, P < 0.0001). US detected osteophytes in 46 sites at which conventional radiography did not detect any osteophytes. CONCLUSION: The present feature-specific comparison study provides evidence supporting the concurrent validity of US in the assessment of knee joint damage due to OA through its agreement with conventional radiography. Moreover, US was found to be a sensitive imaging technique for revealing cartilage damage and even minimal osteophytes, especially in the early radiographic stages of knee OA.
OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to compare ultrasonography (US) with conventional radiography for the assessment of joint damage in knee OA. METHODS: A total of 166 knees of 84 patients (59 women and 25 men) with primary knee OA were included in this study. The femoral hyaline cartilage of the medial para-patellar aspect and the osteophytes of both the medial and lateral femoral condyle were assessed. The cartilage and osteophytes were both quantitatively and qualitatively assessed. The US assessment was feature-specifically compared with conventional radiography. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between the radiographic medial tibiofemoral narrowing grade and the US medial cartilage grade (rs = 0.7144, 95% CI: 0.6218, 0.7873, P < 0.0001). In the detailed analysis, US could assess cartilage damage more correctly by using the direct visualization technique. A strong correlation was also found between the radiographic and the US medial femoral osteophyte grade (rs = 0.7515, 95% CI: 0.6659, 0.8176, P < 0.0001) and between the radiographic and the US lateral femoral osteophyte grade (rs = 0.6947, 95% CI: 0.5941, 0.7739, P < 0.0001). US detected osteophytes in 46 sites at which conventional radiography did not detect any osteophytes. CONCLUSION: The present feature-specific comparison study provides evidence supporting the concurrent validity of US in the assessment of knee joint damage due to OA through its agreement with conventional radiography. Moreover, US was found to be a sensitive imaging technique for revealing cartilage damage and even minimal osteophytes, especially in the early radiographic stages of knee OA.
Authors: Luca Maria Sconfienza; Domenico Albano; Georgina Allen; Alberto Bazzocchi; Bianca Bignotti; Vito Chianca; Fernando Facal de Castro; Elena E Drakonaki; Elena Gallardo; Jan Gielen; Andrea Sabine Klauser; Carlo Martinoli; Giovanni Mauri; Eugene McNally; Carmelo Messina; Rebeca Mirón Mombiela; Davide Orlandi; Athena Plagou; Magdalena Posadzy; Rosa de la Puente; Monique Reijnierse; Federica Rossi; Saulius Rutkauskas; Ziga Snoj; Jelena Vucetic; David Wilson; Alberto Stefano Tagliafico Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nadiya V Yerich; Carolina Alvarez; Todd A Schwartz; Serena Savage-Guin; Jordan B Renner; Catherine J Bakewell; Minna J Kohler; Janice Lin; Jonathan Samuels; Amanda E Nelson Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2020-06-29
Authors: Garifallia Sakellariou; Carlo Alberto Scirè; Antonella Adinolfi; Alberto Batticciotto; Alessandra Bortoluzzi; Andrea Delle Sedie; Orazio De Lucia; Christian Dejaco; Oscar Massimiliano Epis; Emilio Filippucci; Luca Idolazzi; Andrea Picchianti Diamanti; Alen Zabotti; Annamaria Iagnocco; Georgios Filippou Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-05-07
Authors: Mika T Nevalainen; Kyösti Kauppinen; Juho Pylväläinen; Konsta Pamilo; Maija Pesola; Marianne Haapea; Juhani Koski; Simo Saarakkala Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ali Mobasheri; Simo Saarakkala; Mikko Finnilä; Morten A Karsdal; Anne-Christine Bay-Jensen; Willem Evert van Spil Journal: F1000Res Date: 2019-12-12