Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 4669–4680 | Cite as

Tibial tuberosity to trochlear groove distance and its association with patellofemoral osteoarthritis-related structural damage worsening: data from the osteoarthritis initiative

  • Arya Haj-Mirzaian
  • Ali Guermazi
  • Michael Hakky
  • Christopher Sereni
  • Bashir Zikria
  • Frank W. Roemer
  • Miho J. Tanaka
  • Andrew J. Cosgarea
  • Shadpour Demehri
Musculoskeletal
  • 166 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether the tibial tuberosity-to-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance is associated with concurrent patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis (OA)-related structural damage and its worsening on 24-month follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in participants in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI).

Methods

Six hundred subjects (one index knee per participant) were assessed. To evaluate patellofemoral OA-related structural damage, baseline and 24-month semiquantitative MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) variables for cartilage defects, bone marrow lesions (BMLs), osteophytes, effusion, and synovitis were extracted from available readings. The TT-TG distance was measured in all subjects using baseline MRIs by two musculoskeletal radiologists. The associations between baseline TT-TG distance and concurrent baseline MOAKS variables and their worsening in follow-up MRI were investigated using regression analysis adjusted for variables associated with tibiofemoral and patellofemoral OA.

Results

At baseline, increased TT-TG distance was associated with concurrent lateral patellar and trochlear cartilage damages, BML, osteophytes, and knee joint effusion [cross-sectional evaluations; overall odds ratio 95% confidence interval (OR 95% CI): 1.098 (1.045–1.154), p < 0.001]. In the longitudinal analysis, increased TT-TG distance was significantly related to lateral patellar and trochlear cartilage, BML, and joint effusion worsening (overall OR 95% CI: 1.111 (1.056–1.170), p < 0.001).

Conclusions

TT-TG distance was associated with simultaneous lateral patellofemoral OA-related structural damage and its worsening over 24 months. Abnormally lateralized tibial tuberosity may be considered as a risk factor for future patellofemoral OA worsening.

Key Points

Excessive TT-TG distance on MRI is an indicator/predictor of lateral-patellofemoral-OA.

TT-TG is associated with simultaneous lateral-patellofemoral-OA (6–17% chance-increase for each millimeter increase).

TT-TG is associated with longitudinal (24-months) lateral-patellofemoral-OA (5–15% chance-increase for each millimeter).

Keywords

Osteoarthritis Knee Patella Magnetic resonance imaging 

Abbreviations

2D

Two-dimensional

ACL

Anterior cruciate ligament

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

AUC

Area under the curve

BMI

Body mass index

BML

Bone marrow lesion

CI

Confidence interval

CT

Computed tomography

DESS

Dual echo at steady state

FNIH

Foundation for the National Institute of Health

IW

Intermediate weighted

JSL

Joint space loss

KL

Kellgren-Lawrence

MOAKS

Magnetic resonance imaging osteoarthritis knee score

MPR

Multiplanar reconstruction

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

OA

Osteoarthritis

OAI

Osteoarthritis initiative

OR

Odds ratio

PASE

Physical activity scale for elderly

ROC

Receiver-operating characteristic

SD

Standard deviation

TSE

Turbo spin echo

TTM

Tibial tuberosity medialization (TTM)

TT-TG

Tibial tuberosity trochlear groove

WE

Water excitation

WOMAC

Western Ontario & McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Shadpour Demehri.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because we used the open access OAI database. All enrolled subjects in OAI study gave informed consent.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because we used the open access OAI database.

The OAI study has received ethics board approval by the institutional review board at the University of California, San Francisco (OAI Coordinating Center; Approval Number: 10-00532).

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in the OAI database and OAI-related articles.

Methodology

• prospective

• observational

• multicenter study

Supplementary material

330_2018_5460_MOESM1_ESM.docx (109 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 109 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hart HF, Stefanik JJ, Wyndow N, Machotka Z, Crossley KM (2017) The prevalence of radiographic and MRI-defined patellofemoral osteoarthritis and structural pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 51:1195–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arendt EA, Berruto M, Filardo G et al (2016) Early osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:1836–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tsavalas N, Katonis P, Karantanas AH (2012) Knee joint anterior malalignment and patellofemoral osteoarthritis: an MRI study. Eur Radiol 22:418–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mehl J, Feucht MJ, Bode G, Dovi-Akue D, Südkamp NP, Niemeyer P (2016) Association between patellar cartilage defects and patellofemoral geometry: a matched-pair MRI comparison of patients with and without isolated patellar cartilage defects. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:838–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Macri EM, Stefanik JJ, Khan KK, Crossley KM (2016) Is tibiofemoral or patellofemoral alignment or trochlear morphology associated with patellofemoral osteoarthritis? A systematic review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 68:1453–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lording T, Lustig S, Servien E, Neyret P (2014) Chondral injury in patellofemoral instability. Cartilage 5:136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thakkar RS, Del Grande F, Wadhwa V et al (2016) Patellar instability: CT and MRI measurements and their correlation with internal derangement findings. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3021–3028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marquez-Lara A, Andersen J, Lenchik L, Ferguson CM, Gupta P (2017) Variability in Patellofemoral Alignment Measurements on MRI: Influence of Knee Position. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:1097–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stephen JM, Lumpaopong P, Dodds AL, Williams A, Amis AA (2015) The effect of tibial tuberosity medialization and lateralization on patellofemoral joint kinematics, contact mechanics, and stability. Am J Sports Med 43:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schoettle PB, Zanetti M, Seifert B, Pfirrmann CWA, Fucentese SF, Romero J (2006) The tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance; a comparative study between CT and MRI scanning. Knee 13:26–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tanaka MJ, Elias JJ, Williams AA, Carrino JA, Cosgarea AJ (2015) Correlation between changes in tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance and patellar position during active knee extension on dynamic kinematic computed tomographic imaging. Arthroscopy 31:1748–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otsuki S, Nakajima M, Okamoto Y et al (2016) Correlation between varus knee malalignment and patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demehri S, Thawait GK, Williams AA et al (2014) Imaging characteristics of contralateral asymptomatic patellofemoral joints in patients with unilateral instability. Radiology 273:821–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams AA, Elias JJ, Tanaka MJ et al (2016) The relationship between tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance and abnormal patellar tracking in patients with unilateral patellar instability. Arthroscopy 32:55–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Becher C, Schumacher T, Fleischer B, Ettinger M, Smith T, Ostermeier S (2015) The effects of a dynamic patellar realignment brace on disease determinants for patellofemoral instability in the upright weight-bearing condition. J Orthop Surg Res 10:126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saranathan A, Kirkpatrick MS, Mani S et al (2012) The effect of tibial tuberosity realignment procedures on the patellofemoral pressure distribution. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2054–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mani S, Kirkpatrick MS, Saranathan A, Smith LG, Cosgarea AJ, Elias JJ (2011) Tibial tuberosity osteotomy for patellofemoral realignment alters tibiofemoral kinematics. Am J Sports Med 39:1024–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elias JJ, Carrino JA, Saranathan A, Guseila LM, Tanaka MJ, Cosgarea AJ (2014) Variations in kinematics and function following patellar stabilization including tibial tuberosity realignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:2350–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vasiliadis HS, Lindahl A, Georgoulis AD, Peterson L (2011) Malalignment and cartilage lesions in the patellofemoral joint treated with autologous chondrocyte implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pascual-Garrido C, Slabaugh MA, L'Heureux DR, Friel NA, Cole BJ (2009) Recommendations and treatment outcomes for patellofemoral articular cartilage defects with autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med 37:33S–41SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunter DJ, Guermazi A, Lo GH et al (2011) Evolution of semi-quantitative whole joint assessment of knee OA: MOAKS (MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19:990–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Folkesson J, Dam EB, Olsen OF, Pettersen PC, Christiansen C (2007) Segmenting articular cartilage automatically using a voxel classification approach. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 26:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Son YN, Jin W, Jahng GH et al (2018) Efficacy of double inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of the synovium in the femoro-patellar joint without contrast enhancement. Eur Radiol 28:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pandit S, Frampton C, Stoddart J, Lynskey T (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of tibial tuberosity–trochlear groove distance: normal values for males and females. Int Orthop 35:1799–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cicuttini F, Spector T, Baker J (1997) Risk factors for osteoarthritis in the tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joints of the knee. J Rheumatol 24:1164–1167PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tangtrakulwanich B, Suwanno P (2012) Epidemiology and risk factors of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in adults: a population-based study in southern Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 95:1048PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hunter D, Arden N, Conaghan P et al (2011) Definition of osteoarthritis on MRI: results of a Delphi exercise. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19:963–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Runhaar J, Schiphof D, van Meer B, Reijman M, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Oei E (2014) How to define subregional osteoarthritis progression using semi-quantitative MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:1533–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goutallier D, Bernageau J, Lecudonnec B (1978) The measurement of the tibial tuberosity. Patella groove distanced technique and results (author's transl). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 64:423–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dejour H, Neyret P, Walch G (1992) Factors in patellar instability. In: Aichroth PM, Dilworth Cannon W (eds) Knee surgery current practice. Martin Dunitz Ltd, London, pp 403–412Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dietrich TJ, Betz M, Pfirrmann CWA, Koch PP, Fucentese SF (2014) End-stage extension of the knee and its influence on tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance (TTTG) in asymptomatic volunteers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:214–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Camathias C, Pagenstert G, Stutz U, Barg A, Müller-Gerbl M, Nowakowski AM (2016) The effect of knee flexion and rotation on the tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distance. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:2811–2817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Camp CL, Stuart MJ, Krych AJ et al (2013) CT and MRI measurements of tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distances are not equivalent in patients with patellar instability. Am J Sports Med 41:1835–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hinckel BB, Gobbi RG, Filho EN et al (2015) Are the osseous and tendinous-cartilaginous tibial tuberosity-trochlear groove distances the same on CT and MRI? Skeletal Radiol 44:1085–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hunter DJ, Zhang W, Conaghan PG et al (2011) Systematic review of the concurrent and predictive validity of MRI biomarkers in OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19:557–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dejour H, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Guier CH (1994) Factors of patellar instability: an anatomic radiographic study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ridley TJ, Hinckel BB, Kruckeberg BM, Agel J, Arendt EA (2016) Anatomical patella instability risk factors on MRI show sensitivity without specificity in patients with patellofemoral instability: a systematic review. J ISAKOS 1:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roemer FW, Guermazi A, Felson DT et al (2011) Presence of MRI-detected joint effusion and synovitis increases the risk of cartilage loss in knees without osteoarthritis at 30-month follow-up: the MOST study. Ann Rheum Dis 70:1804–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chhabra A, Subhawong TK, Carrino JA (2011) A systematised MRI approach to evaluating the patellofemoral joint. Skeletal Radiol 40:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jarraya M, Guermazi A, Felson DT et al (2017) Is superolateral Hoffa's fat pad hyperintensity a marker of local patellofemoral joint disease? The MOST study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 25:1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roemer FW, Guermazi A (2014) Osteoarthritis year in review 2014: imaging. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:2003–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Quilty B, Tucker M, Campbell R, Dieppe P (2003) Physiotherapy, including quadriceps exercises and patellar taping, for knee osteoarthritis with predominant patello-femoral joint involvement: randomized controlled trial. J Rheumatol 30:1311–1317PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hunter DJ, Harvey W, Gross KD et al (2011) A randomized trial of patellofemoral bracing for treatment of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 19:792–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Becker R, Röpke M, Krull A, Musahl V, Nebelung W (2008) Surgical treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gigante A, Enea D, Greco F et al (2009) Distal realignment and patellar autologous chondrocyte implantation: mid-term results in a selected population. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Merchant A, Fulkerson J, Leadbetter W (2017) The diagnosis and initial treatment of patellofemoral disorders. A Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 46:68Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lobner S, Krauss C, Reichwein F, Patzer T, Nebelung W, Venjakob AJ (2017) Surgical treatment of patellar instability: clinical and radiological outcome after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction and tibial tuberosity medialisation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 37:1087–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arya Haj-Mirzaian
    • 1
  • Ali Guermazi
    • 2
  • Michael Hakky
    • 3
  • Christopher Sereni
    • 4
  • Bashir Zikria
    • 5
  • Frank W. Roemer
    • 2
    • 6
  • Miho J. Tanaka
    • 5
  • Andrew J. Cosgarea
    • 5
  • Shadpour Demehri
    • 1
  1. 1.The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological ScienceJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyFlorida HospitalMaitlandUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations