How Do Sex, Age, and Osteoarthritis Affect Cartilage Thickness at the Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint? Insights from Subject-Specific Cartilage Modeling

  • Eni Halilaj
  • David H. Laidlaw
  • Douglas C. Moore
  • Joseph J. Crisco
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Vision and Biomechanics book series (LNCVB, volume 13)

Abstract

Studying the morphology of the thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint cartilage in both health and disease is warranted by the high incidence of CMC osteoarthritis (OA), especially in women; however, quantifying CMC cartilage variation in vivo remains challenging with current modalities. We used a subject-specific cartilage model that is based on joint space volume computations from sequential CT scans to find that cartilage thickness does not differ with sex and age, but that it does with early signs of OA. These findings advance the general understanding of CMC joint mechanics and OA pathogenesis by verifying that metabolic or genetic differences, under the influence of mechanical loading, rather than mechanical factors alone, are implicated in the pathoetiology of CMC OA. This model may be used to study cartilage degradation in vivo, may be incorporated into subject-specific mechanical simulations, and may have clinical applications for OA staging if combined with dynamic volume CT.

References

  1. 1.
    Haara MM, Heliövaara M, Kröger H, Arokoski JPA, Manninen P, Kärkkäinen A, Knekt P, Impivaara O, Aromaa A (2004) Osteoarthritis in the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb. Prevalence and associations with disability and mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1452–1457Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koff MF, Ugwonali OF, Strauch RJ, Rosenwasser MP, Ateshian GA, Mow VC (2003) Sequential wear patterns of the articular cartilage of the thumb carpometacarpal joint in osteoarthritis. J Hand Surg Am 28:597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ateshian GA, Ark JW, Rosenwasser MP, Pawluk RJ, Soslowsky LJ, Mow VC (1995) Contact areas in the thumb carpometacarpal joint. J Orthop Res 13:450–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marai GE, Crisco JJ, Laidlaw DH (2006) A kinematics-based method for generating cartilage maps and deformations in the multi-articulating wrist joint from CT images. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 1:2079–2082Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eaton RG, Glickel SZ (1987) Trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Staging as a rationale for treatment. Hand Clin 3:455–471Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marai GE, Laidlaw DH, Crisco JJ (2006) Super-resolution registration using tissue-classified distance fields. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Acheson RM, Chan YK, Clemett AR (1970) New Haven survey of joint diseases. XII. Distribution and symptoms of osteoarthrosis in the hands with reference to handedness. Ann Rheum Dis 29:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Faber SC, Eckstein F, Lukasz S, Mühlbauer R, Hohe J, Englmeier K-H, Reiser M (2001) Gender differences in knee joint cartilage thickness, volume and articular surface areas: assessment with quantitative three-dimensional MR imaging. Skeletal Radiol 30:144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eni Halilaj
    • 1
  • David H. Laidlaw
    • 2
  • Douglas C. Moore
    • 3
  • Joseph J. Crisco
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Biomedical EngineeringBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Department of OrthopaedicsWarren Alpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations