Dynamic load at baseline can predict radiographic disease progression in medial compartment knee osteoarthritis

T Miyazaki, M Wada, H Kawahara, M Sato, H Baba, S Shimada, T Miyazaki, M Wada, H Kawahara, M Sato, H Baba, S Shimada

Abstract

Objective: To test the hypothesis that dynamic load at baseline can predict radiographic disease progression in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods: During 1991-93 baseline data were collected by assessment of pain, radiography, and gait analysis in 106 patients referred to hospital with medial compartment knee OA. At the six year follow up, 74 patients were again examined to assess radiographic changes. Radiographic disease progression was defined as more than one grade narrowing of minimum joint space of the medial compartment.

Results: In the 32 patients showing disease progression, pain was more severe and adduction moment was higher at baseline than in those without disease progression (n=42). Joint space narrowing of the medial compartment during the six year period correlated significantly with the adduction moment at entry. Adduction moment correlated significantly with mechanical axis (varus alignment) and negatively with joint space width and pain score. Logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of progression of knee OA increased 6.46 times with a 1% increase in adduction moment.

Conclusions: The results suggest that the baseline adduction moment of the knee, which reflects the dynamic load on the medial compartment, can predict radiographic OA progression at the six year follow up in patients with medial compartment knee OA.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The mechanical axis (α) from the full length weightbearing AP radiograph of the leg.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Receiver operating characteristic curves of the baseline adduction moment, mechanical axis, joint space width, and pain score for discriminating radiographic disease progression in medial compartment knee OA.

References

    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Apr;40(4):723-7
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1996 Jul;55(7):432-6
    1. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 1998 May;10(3):269-72
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Jul;41(7):1233-40
    1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Sep;(354):180-8
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1998 Oct;57(10):624-9
    1. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2000 Mar;8(2):78-81
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 2000 May;43(5):995-1000
    1. J Orthop Res. 2000 Jul;18(4):572-9
    1. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001 May;40(5):499-505
    1. JAMA. 2001 Jul 11;286(2):188-95
    1. Lancet. 2001 Sep 8;358(9284):775-6
    1. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Sep;58(6):754-65
    1. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Dec;(213):34-40
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1987 Aug;30(8):914-8
    1. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Aug;130(2):278-88
    1. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990 Jul;72(4):639-40
    1. J Orthop Res. 1991 Jan;9(1):113-9
    1. J Rheumatol. 1992 Mar;19(3):378-84
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1992 Aug;51(8):932-7
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1992 Oct;51(10):1107-10
    1. J Rheumatol. 1993 Feb;20(2):331-5
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1993 Aug;52(8):557-63
    1. Orthop Clin North Am. 1994 Jul;25(3):387-93
    1. Orthop Clin North Am. 1994 Jul;25(3):395-403
    1. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995 Jan;54(1):53-8
    1. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):760-7
    1. Br J Rheumatol. 1995 Apr;34(4):306-10
    1. J Rheumatol. 1995 Oct;22(10):1941-6
    1. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1995 Sep;3 Suppl A:3-70
    1. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1997 Mar;5(2):87-97

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi