4.5 Article

Baseline Articular Contact Stress Levels Predict Incident Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis Development in the MOST Cohort

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH
卷 27, 期 12, 页码 1562-1568

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20936

关键词

knee; osteoarthritis; biomechanics; epidemiology; risk

资金

  1. University of Iowa Biological Sciences Funding Program
  2. NIH [AG18832, AR55533, AG18820, AG18947, AG19069, K12HD001097-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We studied whether contact stress estimates from knee magnetic resonance images (MRI) predict the development of incident symptomatic tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) 15 months later in an at-risk cohort. This nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of 3,026 adults, age 50 to79 years. Thirty cases with incident symptomatic tibiofemoral OA by their 15 month follow-up visit were randomly selected and matched with 30 control subjects. Symptomatic tibiofemoral OA was defined as daily knee pain/stiffness and Kellgren-Lawrence Grade >= 2 on weight bearing, fixed-flexion radiographs. Tibiofemoral geometry was segmented on baseline knee MRI, and contact stresses were estimated using discrete element analysis. Linear mixed models for repeated measures were used to examine the association between articular contact stress and case/control status. No significant intergroup differences were found for age, sex, BMI, weight, height, or limb alignment. However, the maximum articular contact stress was 0.54 +/- 0.77 MPa (mean +/- SD) higher in incident OA cases compared to that in control knees (p=0.0007). The interaction between case-control status and contact stress was significant above 3.20 MPa (p < 0.0001). The presence of differences in estimated contact stress 15 months prior to incidence suggests a biomechanical mechanism for symptomatic tibiofemoral OA and supports the ability to identify risk by subject-specific biomechanical modeling. (C) 2009 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 27:1562-1568, 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据