4.5 Article

Ultrasonographic evaluation of the femoral cartilage thickness in patients with chronic renal failure

Journal

RENAL FAILURE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 600-604

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/0886022X.2016.1149685

Keywords

ultrasonography; cartilage thickness; chronic renal failure; Arthralgia; osteoarthritis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the effects of chronic renal failure (CRF) on the distal femoral cartilage thickness by using ultrasonography and to determine the relationship between cartilage thickness and certain disease-related parameters. Design Fifty-seven CRF patients (41 male and 16 female) (mean [SD] age, 44.7 [12.1] years) and 60 healthy controls (41 male and 19 female) (mean [SD] age, 43.5 [13.3] years) were enrolled in this study. Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. Cartilage thickness measurements were taken from the medial and lateral condyles, and intercondylar areas of both knees. Results Groups were similar in terms of age, weight, height, body mass index and gender (all p>0.05). The mean cartilage thickness was found to be less in CRF patients than in controls (statistically significant for medial condyles and intercondylar areas both in right and the left knees [all p<0.05]). Cartilage thickness showed no correlation with eGFR, and with the levels of serum urea, creatinine, calcium, magnesium, phosphor, hemoglobin, uric acid and as well as steroid use (all p>0.05) in CRF patients. Conclusion In the light of our findings, we imply that patients with CRF have thinner femoral cartilage than healthy controls. This result may support the view that patients with CRF are at increased risk for developing early knee osteoarthritis. Last but not least, clinicians should be aware of the importance of rehabilitation strategies aimed at decreasing onset and progression of knee osteoarthritis in patients with CRF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available