Current status of imaging procedures in the diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of osteoarthritis.
X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthroscopy are the methods most widely used to assess the status of osteoarthritic joints. How do these methods compare? As diagnostic tools, what is the relative sensitivity of X-ray versus MRI, arthroscopy versus MRI and arthroscopy versus X-ray? Which imaging modalities can be used for predicting progression? Scintigraphy and MRI can assess the degree of cellular activity in the tissues of a joint, which may help in prognosis. Are the methods proven and are they reliable? Recommendations for clinical trials in knee osteoarthritis, state it is essential that reproducible radiographs are obtained for reliable assessment of progression. Two radiographic views of the knee have been proposed; which provides the more reliable assessment, the knee in extension or semi-flexed? Compared with standard radiography, does microfocal radiography make a difference to patient numbers required for drug trials?
Buckland-Wright
C
C
Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology, United Medical School, Guy's Hospital, University of London, UK.
D001175:Arthrography / Q000379:methods; D001182:Arthroscopy; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D018450:Disease Progression; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D010003:Osteoarthritis / Q000175:diagnosis*; D011379:Prognosis; D011877:Radionuclide Imaging; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity