M S Harkey1, J T Blackburn2, H Davis3, L Sierra-Arévalo4, D Nissman5, B Pietrosimone6. 1. Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: Harkey@unc.edu. 2. Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: troyb@email.unc.edu. 3. Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: davishc@live.unc.edu. 4. Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: sierraar@live.unc.edu. 5. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: Daniel_nissman@med.unc.edu. 6. Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: brian@unc.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude of medial femoral cartilage deformation using ultrasonography (US) following walking and running in healthy individuals. DESIGN: Twenty-five healthy participants with no history of osteoarthritis or knee injury volunteered for this study. Medial femoral cartilage thickness was assessed using US before and after three separate 30-min loading conditions: (1) walking at a self-selected speed, (2) running at a self-selected speed, and (3) sitting on a treatment table (i.e., control). Cartilage deformation was calculated as the percent change score from pre to post loading in each loading condition. The magnitude of cartilage deformation was compared between the three loading conditions. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline cartilage thickness between the three sessions (F1,24 = 0.18, P = 0.68). Cartilage deformation was different between the loading conditions (F1,24 = 47.54, P < 0.001). The walking (%Δ = -6.7, t24 = 6.90, P < 0.001, d = -1.92) and running (%Δ = -8.9, t24 = 8.14, P < 0.001, d = -1.85) conditions resulted in greater cartilage deformation when compared to the control condition (%Δ = +3.4). There was no difference in cartilage deformation between the running and walking conditions (t24 = 1.10, P = 0.28, d = 0.33). US measured medial femoral cartilage thickness demonstrated reliability and precision within a single session (ICC2,k = 0.966, SEM = 0.07 mm) and between additional sessions separated by seven (ICC2,k = 0.964, SEM = 0.08 mm) and 16 days (ICC2,k = 0.919, SEM = 0.11 mm). CONCLUSIONS: US demonstrated to be a reliable and sensitive imaging modality at quantifying medial femoral cartilage deformation in healthy individuals. Both walking and running conditions created greater cartilage deformation when compared to the control conditions, but no difference was observed between the walking and running conditions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude of medial femoral cartilage deformation using ultrasonography (US) following walking and running in healthy individuals. DESIGN: Twenty-five healthy participants with no history of osteoarthritis or knee injury volunteered for this study. Medial femoral cartilage thickness was assessed using US before and after three separate 30-min loading conditions: (1) walking at a self-selected speed, (2) running at a self-selected speed, and (3) sitting on a treatment table (i.e., control). Cartilage deformation was calculated as the percent change score from pre to post loading in each loading condition. The magnitude of cartilage deformation was compared between the three loading conditions. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline cartilage thickness between the three sessions (F1,24 = 0.18, P = 0.68). Cartilage deformation was different between the loading conditions (F1,24 = 47.54, P < 0.001). The walking (%Δ = -6.7, t24 = 6.90, P < 0.001, d = -1.92) and running (%Δ = -8.9, t24 = 8.14, P < 0.001, d = -1.85) conditions resulted in greater cartilage deformation when compared to the control condition (%Δ = +3.4). There was no difference in cartilage deformation between the running and walking conditions (t24 = 1.10, P = 0.28, d = 0.33). US measured medial femoral cartilage thickness demonstrated reliability and precision within a single session (ICC2,k = 0.966, SEM = 0.07 mm) and between additional sessions separated by seven (ICC2,k = 0.964, SEM = 0.08 mm) and 16 days (ICC2,k = 0.919, SEM = 0.11 mm). CONCLUSIONS: US demonstrated to be a reliable and sensitive imaging modality at quantifying medial femoral cartilage deformation in healthy individuals. Both walking and running conditions created greater cartilage deformation when compared to the control conditions, but no difference was observed between the walking and running conditions.
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: 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: Matthew S Harkey; Jeffrey B Driban; Christopher Kuenze; Ming Zhang; Matthew J Salzler Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Matthew S Harkey; Erin Little; Mikaela Thompson; Ming Zhang; Jeffrey B Driban; Matthew J Salzler Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 2.998