Advertisement

Journal of Medical Ultrasonics

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 137–146 | Cite as

Subclinical crystal arthropathy: a silent contributor to inflammation and functional disability in knees with osteoarthritis—an ultrasound study

  • Reem Hamdy A. MohammedEmail author
  • Hanan Kotb
  • Marian Amir
  • Andrea Di Matteo
Original Article
  • 217 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed at investigating the prevalence of crystal deposits with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by ultrasonography and measure the inflammatory burden associated with crystal deposits in OA using WOMAC score.

Methods

Adult patients with primary knee OA diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria were included. Participants were subjected to history taking, clinical examination, knee US, and plain radiography. The EULAR and the OMERACT ultrasonography definitions and scanning protocols were used.

Results

Fifty-three patients (44 females, 9 males) were enrolled. Mean values were 53.5 years ± 8.3 SD for age and 42.5 months ± 49.5 SD for disease duration. Crystals were detected by US in 73/106 knees (68.9%). Plain radiography revealed chondrocalcinosis in three patients. Mean values for WOMAC pain, stiffness, and disability scores were 14.38 ± 3.99, 4.93 ± 2.06, and 49.61 ± 13.06, respectively, with insignificant differences relative to presence of crystals (P > 0.05). Regression analysis revealed a 4.1-fold increase in the incidence of sonographic crystals with bursitis (OR = 4.13, CI = 1.5–11.2, p = 0.01) and a 3.2-fold increase in the incidence of sonographic crystals with synovial effusion (OR = 3.16, CI = 1.34–7.44, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Subclinical crystals were detected in a considerable number of patients with primary knee OA. The incidence of crystal deposits was significantly higher in patients with bursitis and knee effusion.

Keywords

Osteoarthritis Subclinical crystal deposition disease Chondrocalcinosis Clinical predictors 

Notes

Author contributions

Dr. RM was involved in the hypothesis and study design, performed ultrasound examinations of the patients, and was involved in statistical analysis of and interpretation of preliminary as well as final data, clinical assessment confirmation following ultrasound examination, review of plain radiography with a radiologist, and manuscript writing and revisions. Dr. ADM was involved in manuscript writing, interpretation of statistical data, and peer review for the manuscript. Dr. HK was involved as senior supervisor in the hypothesis, study design, and supervision and review of data collection and interpretation. Dr. AM was involved in patient recruitment, clinical assessment, and recording clinical data during the preliminary study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

There are no financial or other relations that could lead to a conflict of interest. Forms were submitted for all authors.

Ethical statement

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Naredo E, Cabero F, Palop MJ, et al. Ultrasonographic findings in knee osteoarthritis: a comparative study with clinical and radiographic assessment. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2005;13:568–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Doherty M, Jones A, Cawston T. Osteoarthritis. In: Isenberg D, Lanyon P, Muir K, Doherty S, editors. Oxford textbook of rheumatology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 1091–118.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kraus VB, Jordan JM, Doherty M, et al. The Genetics of Generalized Osteoarthritis (GOGO) study: study design and evaluation of osteoarthritis phenotypes. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:120–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dijkgraaf LC, Liem RS, de Bont LG. Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis and crystal deposition diseases: a study of crystals in synovial fluid lavages in osteoarthritic temporomandibular joints. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998;27:268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abishek A, Doherty M. Update on calcium pyrophosphate deposition. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34:32–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Giamarellos-Bourboulis E, Mouktaroudi M, van der Ven J, et al. Crystals of monosodium urate monohydrate enhance LPS-induced release of IL-1 by mononuclear cells through a caspase1 mediated process. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:273–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Martinon F, Pétrilli V, Mayor A, et al. Gout-associated uric acid crystals activate the NALP3 inflammasome. Nature. 2006;440:237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denoble AE, Huffman KM, Stabler TV, et al. Uric acid is a danger signal of increasing risk for osteoarthritis through inflammasome activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:2088–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wick MC, Kastlunger M, Weiss RJ. clinical imaging assessments of knee osteoarthritis in the elderly: a mini-review. Gerontology. 2014;60:386–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guermazi A, Hunter DJ, Roemer FW. Plain radiography and magnetic resonance imaging diagnostics in osteoarthritis: validated staging and scoring. Bone Jt Surg Am. 2009;91:54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bedson J, Croft PR. The discordance between clinical and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic search and summary of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan KK, Sit RW, Wu RW, et al. Clinical, radiological and ultrasonographic findings related to knee pain in osteoarthritis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e92901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum. 1986;29:1039–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellamy NW, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically-important patient- relevant outcome following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Rheum. 1988;15:1833–40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scheel AK, Schmidt WA, Hermann KG, et al. Interobserver reliability of rheumatologists performing musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a EULAR “Train the Trainers” course. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:1043–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naredo E, Moller I, Moragues C, et al. Interobserver reliability in musculoskeletal ultrasonography: results from a “teach the teachers” rheumatologist course. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Backhaus M, Burmester GR, Gerber T, et al. Guidelines for musculoskeletal ultrasound in rheumatology. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60:641–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wakefield R, Balint P, Szkudlarek M. Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology. J Rheum. 2005;32:2485–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Filippou G, Scirè CA, Damjanov N, et al. Definition and reliability assessment of elementary ultrasonographic findings in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: a study by the OMERACT calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease ultrasound subtask force. J Rheum. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.161057.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Filippucci E, Delle Sedie A, Riente L, et al. Ultrasound imaging for the rheumatologist XLVII. Ultrasound of the shoulder in patients with gout and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2013;31:659–64.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grassi W, Meenagh G, Pascual E, et al. “Crystal Clear”—sonographic assessment of gout and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2006;36:197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciancio G, Bortoluzzi A, Govoni M. Epidemiology of gout and chondrocalcinosis. Reumatismo. 2012;63:207–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salaffi F, De Angelis R, Grassi W, Pain Prevalence; INvestigation Group (MAPPING) study, et al. Prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions in an Italian population sample: results of a regional community-based study. I. The MAPPING study. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23:819–28.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Musacchio E, Ramonda R, Perissinotto E, et al. The impact of knee and hip chondrocalcinosis on disability in older people: the ProVA Study from northeastern Italy. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1937–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16:494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abhishek A, Doherty S, Maciewicz R, et al. Evidence of a systemic predisposition to chondrocalcinosis and association between chondrocalcinosis and osteoarthritis at distant joints: a cross sectional study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65:1052–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Filippou G, Adinolfi A, Cimmino MA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound, conventional radiography and synovial fluid analysis in the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate crystal deposition disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016;34:254–60.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang W, Doherty M, Bardin T, et al. European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for calcium pyrophosphate deposition. Part I: terminology and diagnosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:563–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Filippou G, Filippucci E, Tardella M, et al. Extent and distribution of CPP deposits in patients affected by calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease: an ultrasonographic study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1836–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gutierrez M, Di Geso L, Salaffi F, et al. Ultrasound detection of cartilage calcification at knee level in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66:69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zufferey P, Valcov R, Fabreguet I, et al. A prospective evaluation of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in acute microcrystalline arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Filippou G, Bozios P, Gambera D, et al. Ultrasound detection of calcium pyrophosphate dehydrate crystal deposits in menisci: a pilot in vivo and ex vivo study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1426–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Filippou G, Adinolfi A, Iagnocco A, et al. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate dihydrate deposition disease. A systematic literature review and a meta-analysis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2016;24:973–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abhishek A, Doherty S, Maciewicz R, et al. Chondrocalcinosis is common in the absence of knee involvement. Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14:205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hannan MT, Felson DT, Pincus T. Analysis of the discordance between radiographic changes and knee pain in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1513–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Del Cura JL. Ultrasound-guided therapeutic procedures in the musculoskeletal system. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2008;37:203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Patil P, Dasgupta B. Role of diagnostic ultrasound in the assessment of musculoskeletal diseases. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2012;4:341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grassi W, Lamanna G, Farina A, et al. Sonographic imaging of normal and osteoarthritic cartilage. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1999;28:398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    D’Agostino MA, Iagnocco A, Aegerter P, et al. Does subclinical inflammation contribute to impairment of function of knee joints in aged individuals? High prevalence of ultrasound inflammatory findings. Rheumatology. 2015;54:1622–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grassi W. Clinical evaluation versus ultrasonography: who is the winner? J Rheumatol. 2003;30:908–9.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Iagnocco A. Imaging the joint in osteoarthritis: a place for ultrasound? Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:27–38.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Castriota-Scanderbeg A, De Micheli V, Scarale MG, et al. Precision of sonographic measurement of articular cartilage: inter- and intraobserver analysis. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25:545–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barskova VG, Kudaeva FM, Bozhieva LA, et al. Comparison of three imaging techniques in diagnosis of chondrocalcinosis of the knees in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013;52:1090–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Filippou G, Frediani B, Gallo A, et al. A “new” technique for the diagnosis of chon-drocalcinosis of the knee: sensitivity and specificity of high-frequency ultrasonogra-phy. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:1126–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lamers-Karnebeek FB, Van Riel PL, Jansen TL. Additive value for ultrasono-graphic signal in a screening algorithm for patients presenting with acute mono-/oli-goarthritis in whom gout is suspected. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33:555–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gamon E, Combe B, Barnetche T, et al. Diagnostic value of ultrasound in calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. RMD Open. 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2015000118.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Rheumatology and Rehabilitation, School of MedicineCairo University HospitalsCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Rheumatology DepartmentUniversità Politecnica delle Marche, “Carlo Urbani” HospitalIesiItaly

Personalised recommendations