» Articles » PMID: 31840831

The Relationship of Three-Dimensional Joint Space Width on Weight Bearing CT With Pain and Physical Function

Overview
Journal J Orthop Res
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2019 Dec 17
PMID 31840831
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Limitations of plain radiographs may contribute to poor sensitivity in the detection of knee osteoarthritis and poor correlation with pain and physical function. 3D joint space width, measured from weight bearing CT images, may yield a more accurate correlation with patients' symptoms. We assessed the cross-sectional association between 3D joint space width and self-reported pain and physical function. 528 knees (57% women) were analyzed from Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study participants. An upright weight bearing CT scanner was used to acquire bilateral, weight-bearing fixed-flexion images of the knees. A 3D dataset was reconstructed from cone beam projections and joint space width was calculated across the joint surface. The percentages of the apposed medial tibiofemoral joint surface with joint space width <2.0mm and <2.5mm respectively were calculated. Pain and physical function were measured using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Participants who reported greater pain severity tended to have a greater joint area with joint space width <2.0mm (p=.07 for the highest vs. the lowest tertile). Participants who reported greater functional limitations had a greater joint area with joint space width <2.0mm (p=.02 for the highest vs. the lowest tertile). There appears to be an association between the medial tibiofemoral area with joint space width <2.0mm and pain and physical function. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Citing Articles

Improved responsiveness to change in joint space width over 24-month follow-up: comparison of 3D JSW on weight-bearing CT vs 2D JSW on radiographs in the MOST study.

Segal N, Nevitt M, Morales Aquino M, McFadden E, Ho M, Duryea J Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2022; 31(3):406-413.

PMID: 36526151 PMC: 9974913. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.12.002.


Rigid and Non-Rigid Motion Compensation in Weight-Bearing CBCT of the Knee Using Simulated Inertial Measurements.

Maier J, Nitschke M, Choi J, Gold G, Fahrig R, Eskofier B IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2021; 69(5):1608-1619.

PMID: 34714730 PMC: 9134858. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3123673.


WEIGHT-BEARING CONE BEAM CT SCANS AND ITS USES IN ANKLE, FOOT, AND KNEE: AN UPDATE ARTICLE.

Lobo C, Bordalo-Rodrigues M Acta Ortop Bras. 2021; 29(2):105-110.

PMID: 34248411 PMC: 8244836. DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220212902236939.

References
1.
Guermazi A, Niu J, Hayashi D, Roemer F, Englund M, Neogi T . Prevalence of abnormalities in knees detected by MRI in adults without knee osteoarthritis: population based observational study (Framingham Osteoarthritis Study). BMJ. 2012; 345:e5339. PMC: 3430365. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e5339. View

2.
Guermazi A, Hayashi D, Roemer F, Felson D . Osteoarthritis: a review of strengths and weaknesses of different imaging options. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2013; 39(3):567-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.rdc.2013.02.001. View

3.
Duryea J, Neumann G, Niu J, Totterman S, Tamez J, Dabrowski C . Comparison of radiographic joint space width with magnetic resonance imaging cartilage morphometry: analysis of longitudinal data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010; 62(7):932-7. PMC: 2937275. DOI: 10.1002/acr.20148. View

4.
Bellamy N, Campbell J, Hill J, Band P . A comparative study of telephone versus onsite completion of the WOMAC 3.0 osteoarthritis index. J Rheumatol. 2002; 29(4):783-6. View

5.
Segal N, Frick E, Duryea J, Nevitt M, Niu J, Torner J . Comparison of tibiofemoral joint space width measurements from standing CT and fixed flexion radiography. J Orthop Res. 2016; 35(7):1388-1395. PMC: 5299055. DOI: 10.1002/jor.23387. View