4.6 Article

The natural history of cartilage defects in people with knee osteloarthritis

期刊

OSTEOARTHRITIS AND CARTILAGE
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 337-342

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.07.005

关键词

knee osteoarthritis; cartilage defects; progression; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Cartilage defects are highly prevalent in subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Although they are associated with increased cartilage loss and joint replacement, there is little data on the natural history of cartilage defects. The aim of this study was to examine the progression of cartilage defects over 2 years in people with knee OA and to identify factors associated with progression. Methods: One hundred and seventeen subjects with CA underwent magnetic resonance imaging of their dominant knee at baseline and follow-up. Cartilage defects were scored (0-4) at four sites. Bone size of the medial and lateral tibial plateau was determined. Height, weight, body mass index and physical activity were measured by standard protocols. Results: The mean cartilage defect score increased significantly over the 2-year study period in all tibiofemoral compartments (all P < 0.001), except the lateral tibial compartment with age and tibial plateau bone area at baseline being predictors of progression. However, there was heterogeneity with 81% progressing at any site, 15% remaining stable and 4% decreasing. Conclusion: Over 2 years, cartilage defects tend to progress in people with symptomatic OA, with only a small percentage decreasing in severity. Increasing age and increased bone area are risk factors for progression. Interventions aimed at preventing cartilage defects from occurring and reducing their severity may result in a reduction in the severity of OA, by reducing loss of articular cartilage and subsequent requirement for knee joint replacement. (C) 2007 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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