4.7 Article

Asymptomatic secondary hyperparathyroidism can mimic sacroiliitis on computed tomography

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83989-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that erosions in sacroiliac joints were significantly more prevalent in asymptomatic sHPT patients, mainly in the ventral and middle iliac portions. However, there were no significant differences in osteophytes or joint space alterations between the two groups, warranting further investigation into the clinical significance of these findings.
Secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT) as a result of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common health problem and has been reported to manifest at the sacroiliac joints (SIJ). The aim of this investigation was to systematically assess sacroiliac joint changes in asymptomatic sHPT as detected by high-resolution CT. Included in this IRB-approved retrospective case-control study were 56 patients with asymptomatic sHPT as well as 259 matched controls without SIJ disease. Demographic data were retrieved from electronic patient records. High-resolution computed tomography datasets of all patients were subjected to a structured scoring, including erosions, sclerosis, osteophytes, joint space alterations and intraarticular calcifications. Chi(2) tests were used to compare frequencies of lesions. Erosions were significantly more prevalent in patients with sHPT, and were found mainly in the ventral (28.6% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.016) and middle (17.9% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.040) iliac portions of the SIJ. Partial ankylosis was rare in both cohorts (3.6% vs. 5.0%; p > 0.999); complete ankylosis was not observed. Neither extent not prevalence of sclerosis or calcifications differed significantly between groups. Joint lesions reminiscent of sacroiliitis can be found in a substantial portion of asymptomatic patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism. Further investigations into the clinical significance of these findings are warranted.

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

4.7
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