4.5 Article

Occupational Kneeling and Meniscal Tears: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study in Floor Layers

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1512-1519

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.081150

关键词

MENISCAL TEARS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; KNEE; FLOOR LAYERS; KNEELING

资金

  1. Danish Rheumatism Association
  2. Danish Working Environment Research Fund
  3. Danish Medical Research Council
  4. Skive Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate the association between occupational kneelim, and degenerative meniscal tears. Methods. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of both knees was conducted in 92 male floor layers and 49 male graphic designers (referents), with a mean age of 55.6 years (range 42-70 yrs). The presence of grade 3 MRI signal intensities indicating degenerative tears of the anterior, middle, and posterior one-third of the lateral and medial menisci was assessed on 1.5-Tesla MRI scans. The odds ratio (OR) of meniscal tears was determined among floor layers compared to graphic designers. Using logistic regression, models were adjusted for age, body mass index, and knee-straining sports.Results. Degenerative tears were significantly more prevalent in the medial meniscus among floor layers than among graphic designers [OR 2.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-4.98] and significantly more floor layers had medial tears in both knees (OR 3.46, 95% CI 1.41-8.48). Tears extending to the tibial aspect and localized in the middle and posterior one-third of the medial meniscus were most prevalent. Lateral meniscal tears were predominantly unilateral and the prevalence of lateral tears did not differ between the 2 study groups. Knee complaints occurred in about 50% of all floor layers, irrespective of the presence of meniscal tears. Conclusion. Occupational kneeling increases the risk of degenerative tears in the medial but not the lateral menisci in both knees. (First Release May 1 2009; J Rheumatol 200936:1512-9; doi: 10.3899/jrheum.081150)

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