Advertisement

Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 11, pp 1573–1582 | Cite as

Minimum joint space width (mJSW) of patellofemoral joint on standing “skyline” radiographs: test-retest reproducibility and comparison with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI)

  • Paolo SimoniEmail author
  • Sanaa Jamali
  • Adelin Albert
  • Saara Totterman
  • Edward Schreyer
  • Jose G. Tamez-Peña
  • Bruno Beomonte Zobel
  • Victoria Alvarez Miezentseva
  • Philippe Gillet
Scientific Article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the intraobserver, interobserver, and test-retest reproducibility of minimum joint space width (mJSW) measurement of medial and lateral patellofemoral joints on standing “skyline” radiographs and to compare the mJSW of the patellofemoral joint to the mean cartilage thickness calculated by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI).

Materials and methods

A couple of standing “skyline” radiographs of the patellofemoral joints and MRI of 55 knees of 28 volunteers (18 females, ten males, mean age, 48.5 ± 16.2 years) were obtained on the same day. The mJSW of the patellofemoral joint was manually measured and Kellgren and Lawrence grade (KLG) was independently assessed by two observers. The mJSW was compared to the mean cartilage thickness of patellofemoral joint calculated by qMRI.

Results

mJSW of the medial and lateral patellofemoral joint showed an excellent intraobserver agreement (interclass correlation (ICC) = 0.94 and 0.96), interobserver agreement (ICC = 0.90 and 0.95) and test-retest agreement (ICC = 0.92 and 0.96). The mJSW measured on radiographs was correlated to mean cartilage thickness calculated by qMRI (r = 0.71, p < 0.0001 for the medial PFJ and r = 0.81, p < 0.0001 for the lateral PFJ). However, there was a lack of concordance between radiographs and qMRI for extreme values of joint width and KLG. Radiographs yielded higher joint space measures than qMRI in knees with a normal joint space, while qMRI yielded higher joint space measures than radiographs in knees with joint space narrowing and higher KLG.

Conclusions

Standing “skyline” radiographs are a reproducible tool for measuring the mJSW of the patellofemoral joint. The mJSW of the patellofemoral joint on radiographs are correlated with, but not concordant with, qMRI measurements.

Keywords

Patellofemoral joint Radiography Magnetic resonance imaging Articular cartilage Osteoarthritis knee Radiography Adult 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Van Saase JL, van Romunde LK, Cats A, et al. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: Zoetermeer survey. Comparison of radiological osteoarthritis in a Dutch population with that in 10 other populations. Ann Rheum Dis. 1989;48:271–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Felson DT, Naimark A, Anderson J, et al. The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly. The Framingham Osteoarthritis Study. Arthritis Rheum. 1987;30:914–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ledingham J, Regan M, Jones A, et al. Radiographic patterns and associations of osteoarthritis of the knee in patients referred to hospital. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993;52:520–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McAlindon TE, Snow S, Cooper C, et al. Radiographic patterns of osteoarthritis of the knee joint in the community: the importance of the patellofemoral joint. Ann Rheum Dis. 1992;51:844–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laskin RS, van Steijn M. Total knee replacement for patients with patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop. 1999;367:89–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lanyon P, Jones A, Doherty M. Assessing progression of patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a comparison between two radiographic methods. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996;55:875–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cicuttini FM, Baker J, Hart DJ, et al. Choosing the best method for radiological assessment of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996;55:134–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDonnell SM, Bottomley NJ, Hollinghurst D, et al. Skyline patellofemoral radiographs can only exclude late-stage degenerative changes. Knee. 2011;18:21–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boegård T, Rudling O, Petersson IF, et al. Joint-space width in the axial view of the patello-femoral joint. Definitions and comparison with MR imaging. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 1987. 1998;39:24–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones AC, Ledingham J, McAlindon T, et al. Radiographic assessment of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993;52:655–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laurin CA, Dussault R, Levesque HP. The tangential X-ray investigation of the patellofemoral joint: X-ray technique, diagnostic criteria and their interpretation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;144:16–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Egund N. The axial view of the patello-femoral joint. Description of a new radiographic method for routine use. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1986;27(1):101–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malghem J, Maldague B, Lecouvet F, et al. Plain radiography of the knee: the articular surfaces. J Radiol. 2008;89:692–7. quiz708–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toft J. Stress radiography of the patello-femoral joint. Ital J Orthop Traumatol. 1981;7:365–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Turner GW, Burns CB. Erect position/tangential projection of the patellofemoral joint. Radiol Technol. 1982;54:11–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1968; Suppl 277:7–72.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merchant AC, Mercer RL, Jacobsen RH, et al. Roentgenographic analysis of patellofemoral congruence. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56(7):1391–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dupuy DE, Spillane RM, Rosol MS, et al. Quantification of articular cartilage in the knee with three-dimensional MR imaging. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:919–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eckstein F, Schnier M, Haubner M, et al. Accuracy of cartilage volume and thickness measurements with magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;352:137–48.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eckstein F, Westhoff J, Sittek H, et al. In vivo reproducibility of three-dimensional cartilage volume and thickness measurements with MR imaging. Ajr Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(3):593–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tamez-Peña JG, Farber J, González PC, et al. Unsupervised segmentation and quantification of anatomical knee features: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59:1177–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider E, Nevitt M, McCulloch C, et al. Equivalence and precision of knee cartilage morphometry between different segmentation teams, cartilage regions, and MR acquisitions. Osteoarthr Cartil Oars Osteoarthr Res Soc. 2012;20:869–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang Y, Wluka AE, Jones G, et al. Use magnetic resonance imaging to assess articular cartilage. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2012;4:77–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eckstein F, Gavazzeni A, Sittek H, et al. Determination of knee joint cartilage thickness using three-dimensional magnetic resonance chondro-crassometry (3D MR-CCM). Magn Reson Med Off J Soc Magn Reson Med Soc Magn Reson Med. 1996;36:256–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen ZA, McCarthy DM, Kwak SD, et al. Knee cartilage topography, thickness, and contact areas from MRI: in-vitro calibration and in-vivo measurements. Osteoarthr Cartil Oars Osteoarthr Res Soc. 1999;7:95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Graichen H, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Vogl T, et al. Quantitative assessment of cartilage status in osteoarthritis by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging: technical validation for use in analysis of cartilage volume and further morphologic parameters. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50:811–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kladny B, Bail H, Swoboda B, et al. Cartilage thickness measurement in magnetic resonance imaging. Osteoarthr Cartil Oars Osteoarthr Res Soc. 1996;4:181–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marshall KW, Guthrie BT, Mikulis DJ. Quantitative cartilage imaging. Br J Rheumatol. 1995;34 Suppl 1:29–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sittek H, Eckstein F, Gavazzeni A, et al. Assessment of normal patellar cartilage volume and thickness using MRI: an analysis of currently available pulse sequences. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25:55–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karvonen RL, Negendank WG, Fraser SM, et al. Articular cartilage defects of the knee: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and gross pathology. Ann Rheum Dis. 1990;49:672–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buckland-Wright C. Protocols for precise radio-anatomical positioning of the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral compartments of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil Oars Osteoarthr Res Soc. 1995;3(A):71–80.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16:494–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Altman RD, Hochberg M, Murphy Jr WA, et al. Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil Oars Osteoarthr Res Soc. 1995;3(A):3–70.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Settegast J. Typische roentgenbilder von normalen menschen. Lehmanns med. Atlanten. 1921;5:211.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hudelmaier M, Wirth W, Wehr B, et al. Femorotibial cartilage morphology: reproducibility of different metrics and femoral regions, and sensitivity to change in disease. Cells Tissues Organs. 2010;192:340–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Karvonen RL, Negendank WG, Teitge RA, et al. Factors affecting articular cartilage thickness in osteoarthritis and aging. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:1310–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD, Buckwalter KA, et al. Field test of the reproducibility of the semiflexed metatarsophalangeal view in repeated radiographic examinations of subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:109–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peterfy C, Li J, Zaim S, et al. Comparison of fixed-flexion positioning with fluoroscopic semi-flexed positioning for quantifying radiographic joint-space width in the knee: test-retest reproducibility. Skeletal Radiol. 2003;32:128–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Simoni
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sanaa Jamali
    • 1
  • Adelin Albert
    • 2
  • Saara Totterman
    • 3
  • Edward Schreyer
    • 3
  • Jose G. Tamez-Peña
    • 3
  • Bruno Beomonte Zobel
    • 4
  • Victoria Alvarez Miezentseva
    • 1
  • Philippe Gillet
    • 5
  1. 1.Diagnostic Imaging Departement, Domanine du Sart TilmanCHU de LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Biostatistics Departement, Domanine du Sart TilmanCHU de LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.Qmetrics Technologies140 Allens Creek RoadRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Diagnostic Imaging DepartementCampus Bio-Medico UniversityRomeItaly
  5. 5.Orthopaedic surgery Department, Domanine du Sart TilmanCHU de LiègeLiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations