Three-dimensional analysis for quantification of knee joint space width with weight-bearing CT: comparison with non-weight-bearing CT and weight-bearing radiography. Issue 5 (May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fritz, B.; Fritz, J.; Fucentese, S.F.; Pfirrmann, C.W.A.; Sutter, R.
• Is Part Of: Osteoarthritis and cartilage. Volume 30:Issue 5(2022)
• Page Start: 671
• Page End: 680
• Publication Date: 2022-05
• Subjects: Cone-beam computed tomography -- Weight-bearing -- Knee joint -- Osteoarthritis -- 3-D imaging; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Cartilage -- Periodicals; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Cartilage -- Periodicals; Arthrose -- Périodiques; Articulations -- Maladies -- Périodiques; 616.7223005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.11.019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1063-4584

Abstract

Summary: Objective: To compare computer-based 3D-analysis for quantification of the femorotibial joint space width (JSW) using weight-bearing cone beam CT (WB-CT), non-weight-bearing multi-detector CT (NWB-CT), and weight-bearing conventional radiographs (WB-XR). Design: Twenty-six participants prospectively underwent NWB-CT, WB-CT, and WB-XR of the knee. For WB-CT and NWB-CT, the average and minimal JSW was quantified by 3D-analysis of the minimal distance of any point of the subchondral tibial bone surface and the femur. Associations with mechanical leg axes and osteoarthritis were evaluated. Minimal JSW of WB-CT was further compared to WB-XR. Two-tailed p -values of <0.05 were considered significant. Results: Significant differences existed of the average medial and lateral JSW between WB-CT and NWB-CT (medial: 4.7 vs 5.1 mm [ P = 0.028], lateral: 6.3 vs 6.8 mm [ P = 0.008]). The minimal JSW on WB-XR (medial:3.1 mm, lateral:5.8 mm) were significantly wider compared to WB-CT and NWB-CT (both medial:1.8 mm, lateral:2.9 mm, all p < 0.001), but not significantly different between WB-CT and NWB-CT (all p ≥ 0.869). Significant differences between WB-CT and NWB-CT existed in participants with varus knee alignment for the average and the minimal medial JSW ( p = 0.004 and p = 0.011) and for participants with valgus alignment for the average lateral JSW ( p = 0.013). On WB-CT, 25% of the femorotibial compartments showed bone-on-bone apposition, which was significantly higher when compared to NWB-CT (10%, P = 0.008) and WB-XR (8%, P = 0.012). Conclusion: Combining WB-CT with 3D-based assessment allows detailed quantification of the femorotibial joint space and the effect of knee alignment on JSW. WB-CT demonstrates significantly more bone-on-bone appositions, which are underestimated or even undetectable on NWB-CT and WB-XR.