Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gelenksonographie in der Rheumatologie

Joint sonography in rheumatology

  • CME Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Sonographie der Gelenke ist zu einem entscheidenden Bestandteil in der rheumatologischen Diagnostik geworden und mittlerweile im klinischen Alltag unverzichtbar. Hierzu beigetragen haben die hervorragende Darstellung akut entzündlicher Weichteilprozesse einerseits, die sehr frühe Erfassung knöcherner Destruktionen andererseits sowie die nahezu ubiquitäre Verfügbarkeit der Methode. In den letzten Jahren haben sich sowohl im Bereich der Gerätetechnik als auch in der Untersuchungsmethodik neue Entwicklungen ergeben. Die erhebliche Bedeutung der Gelenksonographie für die Früharthritisdiagnostik, die Differenzialdiagnostik, das Therapiemonitoring sowie die Prognoseabschätzung bei Gelenkerkrankungen wird durch eine kontinuierlich steigende Anzahl von internationalen Publikationen untermauert. Mehrere Scoring-Systeme für kleine und auch große Gelenke sind entwickelt worden und haben sich nicht nur unter Studienbedingungen bewährt. Subklinische Entzündungsprozesse, welche für die sog. stille Progression verantwortlich gemacht werden, lassen sich mit Hilfe der Sonographie aufdecken.

Abstract

Sonographic examination of joints has become a decisive component in rheumatological diagnostics and is now indispensible in the clinical routine. The exceptional representation of acute inflammatory soft tissue processes, very early recognition of bony destruction and the ubiquitous availability of the method have been major contributors to this success. In recent years there have been new developments in technology and in examination methods. The substantial importance of sonography for early detection of arthritis, differential diagnostics, therapy monitoring and estimation of prognosis is underlined by the continuously increasing number of international publications. Several scoring systems have been developed for small and large joints and have been proven not only under study conditions but also in practice. Subclinical inflammatory processes which are held responsible for the so-called silent progression can be detected using sonography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7

Literatur

  1. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW et al (2010) Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 69:631–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Foltz V, Gandjbakhch F, Etchepare F et al (2012) Power Doppler ultrasound, but not low-field magnetic resonance imaging, predicts relapse and radiographic disease progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients with low levels of disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 64:67–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pincus T, Sokka T (2002) Partial control of Core Data Set measures and Disease Activity Score (DAS) measures of inflammation does not prevent long-term joint damage: evidence from longitudinal observations over 5–20 years. Clin Exp Rheumatol 20:42–47

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gutierrez M, Filippucci E, Ruta S et al (2011) Inter-observer reliability of high-resolution ultrasonography in the assessment of bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: experience of an intensive dedicated training programme. Rheumatology (Oxford) 50:373–380

    Google Scholar 

  5. Finzel S, Ohrndorf S, Englbrecht M et al (2011) A detailed comparative study of high-resolution ultrasound and micro-computed tomography for detection of arthritic bone erosions. Arthritis Rheum 63:1231–1236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Gerber T et al (2001) Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis 60:641–649

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wakefield RJ, Balint PV, Szkudlarek M et al (2005) Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology. J Rheumatol 32:2485–2487

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Sandrock D et al (2002) Prospective two year follow up study comparing novel and conventional imaging procedures in patients with arthritic finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 61:895–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Backhaus M, Kamradt T, Sandrock D et al (1999) Arthritis of the finger joints: a comprehensive approach comparing conventional radiography, scintigraphy, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 42:1232–1245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Scheel AK, Hermann KG, Ohrndorf S et al (2006) Prospective 7 year follow up imaging study comparing radiography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in rheumatoid arthritis finger joints. Ann Rheum Dis 65:595–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 43:2762–2770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Strandberg C et al (2001) Power Doppler ultrasonography for assessment of synovitis in the metacarpophalangeal joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison with dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 44:2018–2023

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Peluso G, Michelutti A, Bosello S et al (2011) Clinical and ultrasonographic remission determines different chances of relapse in early and long standing rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 70:172–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Naredo E, Wakefield RJ, Iagnocco A et al (2011) The OMERACT ultrasound task force – status and perspectives. J Rheumatol 38:2063–2067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scheel AK, Hermann KG, Kahler E et al (2005) A novel ultrasonographic synovitis scoring system suitable for analyzing finger joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 52:733–743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Naredo E, Gamero F, Bonilla G et al (2005) Ultrasonographic assessment of inflammatory activity in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of extended versus reduced joint evaluation. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23:881–884

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Backhaus M, Ohrndorf S, Kellner H et al (2009) Evaluation of a novel 7-joint ultrasound score in daily rheumatologic practice: a pilot project. Arthritis Rheum 61:1194–1201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Szkudlarek M, Court-Payen M, Jacobsen S et al (2003) Interobserver agreement in ultrasonography of the finger and toe joints in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 48:955–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammer HB, Kvien TK (2011) Comparisons of 7- to 78-joint ultrasonography scores: all different joint combinations show equal response to adalimumab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 13:R78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hartung W, Kellner H, Strunk J et al (2012) Development and evaluation of a novel ultrasound score for large joints in rheumatoid arthritis: one year of experience in daily clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rudwaleit M, Heijde D van der, Landewé R et al (2011) The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis and for spondyloarthritis in general. Ann Rheum Dis 70:25–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Naredo E, Batlle-Gualda E, Garcia-Vivar ML et al (2010) Power Doppler ultrasonography assessment of entheses in spondyloarthropathies: response to therapy of entheseal abnormalities. J Rheumatol 37:2110–2117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thiele RG, Schlesinger N (2007) Diagnosis of gout by ultrasound. Rheumatology (Oxford) 46:1116–1121

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thiele RG, Schlesinger N (2010) Ultrasonography shows disappearance of monosodium urate crystal deposition on hyaline cartilage after sustained normouricemia is achieved. Rheumatol Int 30:495–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ottaviani S, Richette P, Allard A et al (2012) Ultrasonography in gout: a case-control study. Clin Exp Rheumatol 30:499–504

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ellabban AS, Kamel SR, Omar HA et al (2012) Ultrasonographic diagnosis of articular chondrocalcinosis. Rheumatol Int 32:3863–3868

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Conaghan PG, D’Agostino MA, Le Bars M et al (2009) Clinical and ultrasonographic predictors of joint replacement for knee osteoarthritis: results from a large, 3 year, prospective EULAR study. Ann Rheum Dis 69:644–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Keen HI, Lavie F, Wakefield RJ et al (2008) The development of a preliminary ultrasonographic scoring system for features of hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 67:651–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Keen HI, Wakefield RJ, Grainger AJ et al (2008) An ultrasonographic study of osteoarthritis of the hand: synovitis and its relationship to structural pathology and symptoms. Arthritis Rheum 59:1756–1763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mancarella L, Magnani M, Addimanda O et al (2010) Ultrasound-detected synovitis with power Doppler signal is associated with severe radiographic damage and reduced cartilage thickness in hand osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18:1263–1268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Vlychou M, Koutroumpas A, Alexiou I et al (2013) High-resolution ultrasonography and 3.0 T magnetic resonance imaging in erosive and nodal hand osteoarthritis: high frequency of erosions in nodal osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 32:755–762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. W. Hartung, M. Backhaus und S. Ohrndorf geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Rheumatologie und Klinische Immunologie, Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl-V-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Deutschland

    W. Hartung

  2. Med. Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Rheumatologie und Klinische Immunologie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland

    M. Backhaus & S. Ohrndorf

Authors
  1. W. Hartung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Backhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Ohrndorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Hartung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hartung, W., Backhaus, M. & Ohrndorf, S. Gelenksonographie in der Rheumatologie. Z. Rheumatol. 72, 791–803 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-013-1232-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-013-1232-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation