Validation of a novel blinding method for measuring postoperative knee articular cartilage using magnetic resonance imaging
- 18 Downloads
To test PEEK implant-associated MRI artifacts, a method for blinding MRI readers, the repeatability of cartilage thickness measures before and 6 weeks after high tibial osteotomy (HTO), and the sensitivity to change of cartilage thickness 12 months after HTO.
Materials and methods
Ten patients underwent HTO using a PEEK implant and 3 T-MRI before, 6 weeks and 12 months after surgery. Masks were applied to hide implant visibility on 48 MRI pairs, which were assessed by 7 readers (blinded to time). One blinded reader measured femorotibial cartilage thickness from masked MRIs.
No artifacts were produced. Readers were unable to identify scans by time greater than by chance. Cartilage thickness before and 6 weeks after surgery was not significantly different and indicated excellent repeatability. Medial cartilage thickness increases 12 M postoperatively approached statistical significance (p = 0.06), with no lateral changes observed. Half of the participants had an increase in medial cartilage thickness at 12 M that exceeded the minimal detectable change. Standardized response mean values were moderate-to-large.
Postoperative measures of cartilage thickness are repeatable, consistent and sensitive to change when artifact is eliminated, and a validated blinding technique is used. These results provide proof of concept for accurately measuring increases in medial knee articular cartilage after medial opening wedge HTO.
KeywordsOsteoarthritis Knee Articular cartilage Magnetic resonance imaging Osteotomy
RM: study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision. TB: study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision. FE: study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision. WW: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision. SM: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision. BC: acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision. JRG: study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, critical revision
This work was supported in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FRN-133489) (Operating Grant), the Arthritis Society (SOG-13-20) and Canada Research Chairs Program. Funding sources were not involved in the conduct of the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Drs. Birmingham and Giffin report Grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Grants from The Arthritis Society, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Birmingham also reports Grants from Canada Research Chairs Program, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Eckstein reports Grants from NIH, Grants from EU FP7-PEOPLE-2013-ITN, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Chondrometrics GmbH, Ainring, Germany, personal fees from MerckKGaA, personal fees from Samumed, personal fees from Tissuegene, personal fees from Servier, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Medtronic, Grants from Orthotrophix, Grants from MerckKgaA, Grants from Samumed, Grants from Tissuegene, Grants from Boston Imaging Core Lab, outside the submitted work. Drs. Wirth and Maschek report personal fees from Chondrometrics GmbH, Ainring, Germany. Drs. Moyer and Chronik have nothing to disclose.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Chu CR, Sheth S, Erhart-Hledik JC, Do B, Titchenal MR, Andriacchi TP (2018) Mechanically stimulated biomarkers signal cartilage changes over 5 years consistent with disease progression in medial knee osteoarthritis patients. J Orthop Res 36(3):891–897Google Scholar
- 4.Le Graverand MH, Buck RJ, Wyman BT, Vignon E, Mazzuca SA, Brandt KD et al (2010) Change in regional cartilage morphology and joint space width in osteoarthritis participants versus healthy controls: a multicentre study using 3.0 Tesla MRI and Lyon–Schuss radiography. Ann Rheum Dis 69(01):155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Luo J, Huang S, Gong M, Li L, Yu T, Zou X (2015) Two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages with two anchoring clips placed in the upper and lower vertebrae, respectively. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(1):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Roberson TA, Momaya AM, Adams K, Long CD, Tokish JM, Wyland DJ (2018) High tibial osteotomy performed with All-PEEK implants demonstrates similar outcomes but less hardware removal at minimum 2-year follow-up compared with metal plates. Orthop J Sports Med 6(3):2325967117749584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Poolman RW, Struijs PA, Krips R, Sierevelt IN, Marti RK, Farrokhyar F et al (2007) Reporting of outcomes in orthopaedic randomized trials: does blinding of outcome assessors matter? JBJS 89(3):550–558Google Scholar
- 18.ASTM (2001) Standard test method for evaluation of MR image artifacts from passive implantsGoogle Scholar
- 22.Wirth W, Nevitt M, Le Graverand MP, Benichou O, Dreher D, Davies RY et al (2010) Sensitivity to change of cartilage morphometry using coronal FLASH, sagittal DESS, and coronal MPR DESS protocols—comparative data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). Osteoarthr Cartil 18(4):547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Pearson Education, Inc., New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 30.Eckstein F, Yang M, Guermazi A, Roemer FW, Hudelmaier M, Picha K et al (2010) Reference values and Z-scores for subregional femorotibial cartilage thickness—results from a large population-based sample (Framingham) and comparison with the non-exposed Osteoarthritis Initiative reference cohort. Osteoarthr Cartil 18(10):1275–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Wirth W, Nevitt M, Le Graverand MP, Lynch J, Maschek S, Hudelmaier M et al (2014) Lateral and medial joint space narrowing predict subsequent cartilage loss in the narrowed, but not in the non-narrowed femorotibial compartment–data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 22(1):63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar