Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, 27:1507 | Cite as

Validity of the sonographic longitudinal sagittal image for assessment of the cartilage thickness in the knee osteoarthritis

  • Chong-Hyeon Yoon
  • Hyun-Sook Kim
  • Ji Hyeon Ju
  • Won-Hee Jee
  • Sung-Hwan Park
  • Ho-Youn KimEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

We compared the validity of the sonographic longitudinal sagittal image with the suprapatellar transverse axial image for assessment of thickness of femoral cartilage in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Fifty-one patients with knee OA were enrolled in this study. Cartilage thicknesses of medial and lateral femoral condyles were measured with longitudinal sagittal and suprapatellar transverse axial image using sonography. Fat-suppressed 3D spoiled gradient-echo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was also used to get the reference value. The joint space width (JSW) and Kellgren and Lawrence (K–L) grade were measured in weight-bearing anteroposterior knee radiograph. The kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were used to determine inter- and intra-observer agreement of the ultrasound sonography (US) measurements. In medial femoral condyle, the opportunity to obtain cartilage thickness was increased significantly using the longitudinal US scan as compared with tansverse scan (48 cases vs. 36 cases, p < 0.05). There was a good correlation between longitudinal US scan and MRI in the maximum and minimum cartilage thicknesses of medial condyle (r = 0.568; r = 0.844, respectively, p < 0.01). However, there was no correlation between suprapatellar transverse US scan and MRI in medial condyle. In lateral condyle, both US scans showed good correlations with MRI. In Bland–Altman analysis, longitudinal US scan showed good agreement with MRI except in the minimal cartilage thickness of lateral condyle. There was high overall intra- and inter-observer agreement in US scan. US scan in the longitudinal plane is a more feasible method than suprapatellar transverse scan for measuring cartilage thickness of medial femoral condyle in knee OA patient.

Keywords

Cartilage Knee osteoarthritis MRI Ultrasonography 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by SRC grant R11-2002-098-04002-0 from the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) to the Rheumatism Research Center at the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Harris ED Jr (2001) The bone and joint decade: a catalyst for progress. Arthritis Rheum 44:1969–1970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    March LM, Bachmeier CJ (1997) Economics of osteoarthritis: a global perspective. Bailliere’s Clin Rheumatol 11:817–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eckstein F, Glaser C (2004) Measuring cartilage morphology with quantitative magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 8:329–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicuttini FM, Wluka AE, Wang Y et al (2004) Longitudinal study of changes in tibial and femoral cartilage in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 50:94–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peterfy CG (2002) Imaging of the disease process. Curr Opin Rheumatol 14:590–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graichen H, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Vogl T et al (2004) 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 50:811–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dieppe PA, Cushnaghan J, Shepstone L (1997) The Bristol ‘OA500’ study: progression of osteoarthritis (OA) over 3 years and the relationship between clinical and radiographic changes at the knee joint. Osteoarthr Cartil 5:87–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winalski CS, Gupta KB (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of focal articular cartilage lesions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 14:131–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Disler DG, McCauley TR, Wirth CR et al (1995) Detection of knee hyaline cartilage defects using fat-suppressed three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo MR imaging: comparison with standard MR imaging and correlation with arthroscopy. Am J Roentgenol 165:377–382Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grassi W, Lamanna G, Farina A et al (1999) Sonographic imaging of normal and osteoarthritic cartilage. Semin Arthritis Rheum 28:398–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tarhan S, Unlu Z (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonographic evaluation of the patients with knee osteoarthritis: a comparative study. Clin Rheumatol 22:181–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filippucci E, Iagnocco A, Meenagh G et al (2006) Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist. Clin Exp Rheumatol 24:1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boutry N, Morel M, Flipo RM et al (2007) Early rheumatoid arthritis: a review of MRI and sonographic findings. Am J Roentgenol 189:1502–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khoury V, Cardinal E, Bureau NJ (2007) Musculoskeletal sonography: a dynamic tool for usual and unusual disorders. Am J Roentgenol 188:W63–W73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iagnocco A, Perella C, Naredo E et al (2008) Etanercept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: clinical follow-up over one year by ultrasonography. Clin Rheumatol 27:491–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wakefield RJ, Gibbon WW, Conaghan PG et al (2000) The value of sonography in the detection of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with conventional radiography. Arthritis Rheum 43:2762–2770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt WA, Schmidt H, Schicke B et al (2004) Standard reference values for musculoskeletal ultrasonography. Ann Rheum Dis 63:988–994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedman L, Finlay K, Jurriaans E (2001) Ultrasound of the knee. Skeletal Radiol 30:361–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Backhaus M, Burmester G-R, Gerber T et al (2001) Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 60:641–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D et al (1986) Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum 29:1039–1049PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH et al (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bae SC, Lee HS, Yun HR et al (2001) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 9:746–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ahlback S (1968) Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 277(Suppl):7–72Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16:494–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stockl D et al (2002) Application of the Bland–Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem 48:799–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kramer M, Feinstein A (1981) Clinical biostatistics LIV; the biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 29:111–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eckstein F, Charles HC, Buck RJ et al (2005) Accuracy and precision of quantitative assessment of cartilage morphology by magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T. Arthritis Rheum 52:3132–3136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsai CY, Lee CL, Chai CY et al (2007) The validity of in vitro ultrasonographic grading of osteoarthritic femoral condylar cartilage—a comparison with histologic grading. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:245–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chong-Hyeon Yoon
    • 1
  • Hyun-Sook Kim
    • 2
  • Ji Hyeon Ju
    • 1
  • Won-Hee Jee
    • 3
  • Sung-Hwan Park
    • 1
  • Ho-Youn Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kangnam St. Mary’s HospitalThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of MedicineThe Chosun University of KoreaGwangjuSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Kangnam St. Mary’s HospitalThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations