| Literature DB >> 32939481 |
Leônidas de Souza Bomfim1,2, Benno Ejnisman2, Paulo Santoro Belangero2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the development of specific acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis. Its histologic alterations are controversial, and radiologic alterations are seen in asymptomatic people. The objective of this study was to evaluate histologically the distal clavicle subchondral bone and to analyze magnetic resonance images in patients with painful and nonpainful acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis.Entities:
Keywords: Acromioclavicular joint; arthroplasty; histology; magnetic resonance imaging; osteoarthritis; subchondral
Year: 2020 PMID: 32939481 PMCID: PMC7478992 DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.03.007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JSES Int ISSN: 2666-6383
Figure 1Flowchart of patients included in the study. ACJ, acromioclavicular joint; OA, osteoarthritis.
Figure 2(A) Biopsy needle image. (B) Example of a collected fragment. (C) Needle entry image on a videoarthroscopy.
Figure 3Magnetic resonance images. (A) Joint space. (B) Inferior osteophyte. (C and D) Distal clavicle edema. (E) Supraspinatus tendon impingement.
Descriptive analysis of patients with painful and nonpainful acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis treated at our hospital, 2018-2019
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Side that underwent surgery | ||
| Right | 28 | 75.7 |
| Left | 9 | 24.3 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 17 | 45.9 |
| Female | 20 | 54.1 |
| Dominance | ||
| Right | 34 | 91.9 |
| Left | 3 | 8.1 |
| Relation of the ACJ with the supraspinatus | ||
| Does not touch the supraspinatus | 23 | 62.2 |
| Touches the supraspinatus | 14 | 27.8 |
| Resonance edema | ||
| Without edema | 15 | 40.5 |
| With edema | 22 | 59.5 |
ACJ, acromioclavicular joint.
Descriptive analysis of histologic changes in patients with painful and nonpainful acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis treated at our hospital, 2018-2019
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Cartilage degeneration | ||
| Mild | 16 | 53.3 |
| Intense | 14 | 46.7 |
| Unable to evaluate | 7 | |
| Histologic edema | ||
| Without edema | 21 | 58.3 |
| With edema | 15 | 41.7 |
| Unable to evaluate | 1 | |
| Cartilage thickness | ||
| Thin | 26 | 83.9 |
| Thick | 5 | 16.1 |
| Unable to evaluate | 6 | |
| Plate thickness | ||
| Thin | 21 | 75.0 |
| Thick | 7 | 25.0 |
| Unable to evaluate | 9 | |
| Osteoclasts | ||
| No | 11 | 30.6 |
| Yes | 25 | 69.4 |
| Unable to evaluate | 1 |
Figure 4Osteoclasts () and edema region ().
Descriptive analysis of quantitative variables in patients with painful and nonpainful acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis treated at our hospital, 2018-2019
| n | Absent | Median | IQR | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 37 | 0 | 60.00 | 12.00 | 41.00 | 79.00 |
| Pain duration, yr | 37 | 0 | 0.92 | 2.79 | 0.04 | 20.00 |
| Osteophyte resonance, mm | 37 | 0 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 0.00 | 5.00 |
| Joint capsule resonance, mm | 35 | 2 | 3.50 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 6.00 |
| Joint space resonance, mm | 37 | 0 | 3.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 6.00 |
IQR, interquartile range.
Association analysis of qualitative variables with painful and nonpainful acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis in patients treated at our hospital, 2018-2019
| Without ACJ pain, | With ACJ pain, | OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | .009 | 7.000 | 1.509, 32.478 | ||
| Male | 14 (63.6) | 3 (20.0) | |||
| Female | 8 (36.4) | 12 (80.0) | |||
| Relation of ACJ with the supraspinatus | .109 | 3.048 | 0.765, 12.135 | ||
| Does not touch the supraspinatus | 16 (72.7) | 7 (46.7) | |||
| Touches the supraspinatus | 6 (27.3) | 8 (53.3) | |||
| Resonance edema | .005 | 9.389 | 1.691, 52.130 | ||
| Without edema | 13 (59.1) | 2 (13.3) | |||
| With edema | 9 (40.9) | 13 (86.7) | |||
| Histologic edema | .028 | 4.800 | 1.137, 20.272 | ||
| Without edema | 16 (72.7) | 5 (35.7) | |||
| With edema | 6 (27.3) | 9 (64.3) | |||
| Unable to evaluate | 0 | 1 | |||
| Total | 22 (100.0) | 15 (100.0) |
ACJ, acromioclavicular joint; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Association analysis of qualitative variables with painful and nonpainful acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis in patients treated at our hospital, 2018-2019
| n | Absent | Without ACJ pain | With ACJ pain | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | IQR | Median | IQR | ||||
| Age, yr | 37 | 0 | 59.00 | 14.00 | 61.00 | 8.00 | .843 |
| Shoulder pain duration, yr | 37 | 0 | 0.29 | 1.88 | 3.00 | 7.08 | <.001 |
| Osteophyte resonance, mm | 37 | 0 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 2.50 | 2.00 | .249 |
| Joint capsule resonance, mm | 35 | 2 | 3.25 | 2.50 | 4.00 | 3.30 | .210 |
| Joint space resonance, mm | 37 | 0 | 3.00 | 1.40 | 3.00 | 1.00 | .511 |
ACJ, acromioclavicular joint; IQR, interquartile range.
Figure 5Pain duration (years) box plot of patients with and without pain in acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis seen at our hospital, 2018-2019.