| Literature DB >> 29208010 |
Yasumori Sobue1, Toshihisa Kojima2, Kazutoshi Kurokouchi3, Shigeo Takahashi3, Hiroaki Yoshida4, Robin Poole5, Naoki Ishiguro1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether synovial fluid (SF) biomarkers can predict the progression of articular cartilage damage as determined by arthroscopic evaluation during and after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.Entities:
Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament injury; Arthroscopy; Biomarker; Cartilage; Chondroitin sulfate; Keratan sulfate
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29208010 PMCID: PMC5718025 DOI: 10.1186/s13075-017-1471-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arthritis Res Ther ISSN: 1478-6354 Impact factor: 5.156
Fig. 1Proportions (%) of high-grade cartilage damage in progression and non-progression groups at baseline and follow-up. Arthroscopic grading was performed on each of six articular sites (as shown) according to the Outerbridge scoring system. High-grade cartilage damage was defined as Outerbridge grades III and IV. Baseline, ACL reconstruction; follow-up, implant removal; progression group, patients with an increase (between baseline and follow-up) in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions (Outerbridge grades III and IV) by one score in any of the six compartments; non-progression group, patients with no increase in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions
Characteristics of patients in the progression group and the non-progression group at baseline and follow-up
| Variables | Total | Progression group | Non-progression group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | |||||
| Age (years) | Mean (SD) | 27.6 (9.0) | 31.1 (9.2) | 26.5 (8.7) | 0.083 |
| Duration from injury to ACL reconstruction (months) | Mean (SD) | 26.1 (37.8) | 39.7 (49.8) | 21.8 (32.6) | 0.111 |
| Sex, female (%) | 38.7 | 40 | 38.3 | 1 | |
| High-grade meniscus damage (%) | 58.1 | 66.7 | 55.3 | 0.553 | |
| More than one grade III or IV lesion (%) | 35.5 | 46.7 | 31.9 | 0.359 | |
| Follow-up | |||||
| More than grade I of Kellgren-Lawrence (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Duration from reconstruction to removal (months) | Mean (SD) | 26.0 (7.8) | 27.3 (11.7) | 25.6 (6.2) | 0.482 |
| BMI | Mean (SD) | 24.1 (3.1) | 23.9 (2.9) | 24.2 (3.2) | 0.744 |
| Tegner activity level scale | Mean (SD) | 5.1 (2.2) | 5.1 (2.5) | 5.1 (2.1) | 0.944 |
| Pivot shift test, positive (%) | 18.3 | 6.7 | 22.2 | 0.262 | |
| High-grade meniscus damage (%) | 64.5 | 60.0 | 68.1 | 0.755 | |
| More than one grade III or IV lesion (%) | 40.3 | 100 | 21.3 | <0.001 | |
Baseline, ACL reconstruction; Follow-up, implant removal; Progression group, patients with an increase (between baseline and follow-up) in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions (Outerbridge grades III and IV) by one score in any of the six compartments; Non-progression group, patients with no increase in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions; BMI body mass index; high-grade meniscus damage, complete meniscal tear or defect in more than half the meniscus; SD standard deviation. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
Number of grade 0–IV lesions from baseline to follow-up in the progression and the non-progression groups
| Progression group | Non-progression group | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | ||||||
| Grade 0–II | Grade III–IV | Grade 0–II | Grade III–IV | ||||||
| Grade 0 | 28.9% | (n = 26) | 22 (84.6%) | 4 (15.4%) | Grade 0 | 28.7% | (n = 81) | 81 (100%) | 0 (0%) |
| Grade I | 33.3% | (n = 30) | 24 (80.0%) | 6 (20.0%) | Grade I | 44.3% | (n = 125) | 122 (97.6%) | 3 (2.4%) |
| Grade II | 26.7% | (n = 24) | 14 (58.3%) | 10 (41.7%) | Grade II | 17.7% | (n = 50) | 49 (98.0%) | 1 (2.0%) |
| Grade III–IV | 11.1% | (n = 10) | 0 (0%) | 10 (100%) | Grade III–IV | 9.2% | (n = 26) | 11 (42.3%) | 15 (57.7%) |
N = 15 (progression group), N = 47 (non-progression group). Total compartments that were investigated arthroscopically for the Outerbridge grading = 6 per knee (total of 90 (6 × 15) compartments for the progression group and 282 (6 × 47) compartments for the non-progression group). Baseline, ACL construction; Follow-up, implant removal; Progression group, patients with an increase (between baseline and follow-up) in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions (Outerbridge grades III and IV) by one score in any of the six compartments; Non-progression group, patients with no increase in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions
Biomarker levels of patients in the progression and non-progression groups at ACL reconstruction (baseline)
| Variables | Total (n = 62) | Progression group (n = 15) | Non-progression group (n = 47) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2C (ng/ml) | Median (IQR) | 9.8 (5.8–13.8) | 8.8 (5.6–11.8) | 10.4 (6.1–14.3) | 0.282 |
| Δdi-C6S (nmol/ml) | Median (IQR) | 69.6 (54.9–95.1) | 53.4 (50.9–69.4) | 73.5 (60.7–99.9) | 0.004 |
| Δdi-C4S (nmol/ml) | Median (IQR) | 17.1 (14.2–21.6) | 16.3 (14.8–17.8) | 18.0 (14.2–23.0) | 0.170 |
| KS (μg/ml) | Median (IQR) | 11.6 (9.4–15.6) | 9.9 (8.3–11.4) | 11.9 (10.0–16.0) | 0.021 |
| C2C/KS ratio | Median (IQR) | 0.71 (0.51–1.2) | 0.67 (0.52–1.2) | 0.75 (0.51–1.2) | 0.928 |
| C6S/C4S ratio | Median (IQR) | 4.2 (3.6–4.9) | 3.9 (3.2–4.4) | 4.4 (3.7–5.2) | 0.028 |
Progression group, patients with an increase (between baseline and follow-up) in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions (Outerbridge grades III and IV) by one score in any of the six compartments; Non-progression group, patients with no increase in the number of high-grade cartilage lesions; IQR interquartile range. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
Fig. 2ROC curves for Δdi-C6S level, Δdi-C4S level, KS level, C6S/C4S, and the presence of high-grade cartilage progression. Black dots in the figure panels indicate cut-off points. a ROC analysis for the level of Δdi-C6S and the presence of high-grade cartilage progression (area under the ROC curve: 0.746 [95% CI 0.612–0.880]; 60.0% sensitivity and 83.0% specificity for a cut-off of 55.7 nmol/ml). b ROC analysis for the level of Δdi-C4S and the presence of high-grade cartilage progression (area under the ROC curve 0.618 [95% CI 0.478–0.758]; 93.3% sensitivity and 46.8% specificity for a cut-off of 19.0 nmol/ml). c ROC analysis for the level of KS and the presence of high-grade cartilage progression (area under the ROC curve: 0.699 [95% CI 0.526–0.872]; 73.3% sensitivity and 70.2% specificity for a cut-off of 10.6 μg/ml). d ROC analysis for C6S/C4S (ratio of Δdi-C6S to Δdi-C4S) and the presence of high-grade cartilage progression (area under the ROC curve: 0.689 [95% CI 0.546–0.833]; 93.3% sensitivity and 40.0% specificity for a cut-off of 4.6)
Odds ratios for the presence of high-grade cartilage damage progression by Δdi-C6S, KS levels, C6S/C4S
| Variables | Unadjusted OR | Adjusted OR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) |
| (95% CI) |
| ||||
| Δdi-C6S | ≤55.7 | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | ||
| (nmol/ml) | >55.7 | 0.179 | (0.051–0.638) | 0.008 | 0.231 | (0.061–0.879) | 0.032 |
| Δdi-C4S | ≤19.0 | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | ||
| (nmol/ml) | >19.0 | 0.081 | (0.010–0.668) | 0.020 | 0.081 | (0.008–0.763) | 0.028 |
| KS | ≤10.6 | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | ||
| (μg/ml) | >10.6 | 0.154 | (0.042–0.568) | 0.005 | 0.114 | (0.024–0.529) | 0.006 |
| C6S/C4S | ≤4.6 | 1 | Reference | 1 | Reference | ||
| >4.6 | 0.105 | (0.013–0.869) | 0.037 | 0.060 | (0.005–0.737) | 0.028 | |
All independent variables were dichotomized using the cut-off points calculated by ROC analysis and tested in a binary manner. The adjusted model included variables (age, duration from injury to ACL reconstruction, sex, and the number of high-grade cartilage lesions [Outerbridge grades III and IV]) at baseline. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant