Artroscopia y reconstrucción articular

domingo, 27 de abril de 2014

Experience of Patients Undergoing Mini-Arthroscopy Compared to MRI in the Earliest Phases of Arthritis

Experience of Patients Undergoing Mini-Arthroscopy Compared to MRI in the Earliest Phases of Arthritis

Experience of Patients Undergoing Mini-Arthroscopy Compared to MRI in the Earliest Phases of Arthritis
Objective: To evaluate the expectations and experience of patients undergoing mini-arthroscopy compared to contrast enhanced MRI for research purposes. Methods: Seventeen patients with early, active arthritis (Group A) and 21 autoantibody-positive individuals without any evidence of arthritis upon physical examination (Group B) were included. All subjects underwent both contrast enhanced MRI and synovial biopsy sampling by mini-arthroscopy of the same joint within one week. At inclusion and after both procedures, subjects filled in questionnaires with items about expectations and experience with regard to the procedures. Results: Before procedures, subjects in group B had a higher fear of and reluctance to undergo mini-arthroscopy compared to MRI (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Before procedures, 42% of the subjects preferred MRI, 11% of the subjects preferred mini-arthroscopy and 47% had no preference for either procedure. After both procedures, subjects preferences changed to 39% for MRI, 32% for mini-arthroscopy and 29% for no preference for one or the other procedure. When comparing Group A with Group B, there were no significant differences in preference before and after the procedures. Conclusion: Synovial biopsy sampling by mini-arthroscopy for analysis of synovial inflammation is a well-experienced procedure when compared to contrast enhanced MRI. These results support the use of mini-arthroscopy in a research setting from a patient perspective.
Cite this paper
M. de Hair, M. de Sande, M. Maas, D. Gerlag and P. Tak, "Experience of Patients Undergoing Mini-Arthroscopy Compared to MRI in the Earliest Phases of Arthritis," International Journal of Clinical Medicine, Vol. 4 No. 12B, 2013, pp. 1-5. doi: 10.4236/ijcm.2013.412A2001.
[1]P. P. Tak and B. Bresnihan, “The Pathogenesis and Prevention of Joint Damage in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Advances from Synovial Biopsy and Tissue Analysis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, Vol. 43, No. 12, 2000, pp. 2619-2633.<2619::AID-ANR1>3.0.CO;2-V
[2]D. M. Gerlag and P. P. Tak, “How to Perform and Analyse Synovial Biopsies,” Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2009, pp. 221-232.
[3]D. Kane, D. J. Veale, O. Fitzgerald, et al., “Survey of Arthroscopy Performed by Rheumatologists,” Rheumatology (Oxford), Vol. 41, No. 2, 2002, pp. 210-215.
[4]S. Vordenbaumen, L. A. Joosten, J. Friemann, et al., “Utility of Synovial Biopsy,” Arthritis Research & Therapy, Vol. 11, 2009, p. 256.
[5]M. B. Axelsen, M. Stoltenberg, R. P. Poggenborg, et al., “Dynamic Gadolinium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Allows Accurate Assessment of the Synovial Inflammatory Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Knee Joints: A Comparison with Synovial Histology,” Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2012, pp. 89-94.
[6]C. van der Leij, M. G. van de Sande and C. Lavini, et al., “Rheumatoid Synovial Inflammation: Pixel-by-Pixel Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging Time-Intensity Curve Shape Analysis—A Feasibility Study,” Radiology, Vol. 253, No. 1, 2009, pp. 234-240.
[7]M. Navalho, C. Resende, A. M. Rodrigues, et al., “Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced 3-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Method for Quantifying Disease Activity in Early Polyarthritis,” Skeletal Radiology, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2012, pp. 51-59.
[8]B. Ejbjerg, E. Narvestad, E. Rostrup, et al., “Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Wrist and Finger Joints in Healthy Subjects Occasionally Shows Changes Resembling Erosions and Synovitis as Seen in Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, Vol. 50, 2004, pp. 1097-1106.
[9]M. Ostergaard, I. Lorenzen and O. Henriksen, “Dynamic Gadolinium-Enhanced MR Imaging in Active and Inactive Immunoinflammatory Gonarthritis,” Acta Radiologica, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1994, pp. 275-281.
[10]M. Ostergaard, M. Stoltenberg, P. Lovgreen-Nielsen, et al., “Quantification of Synovistis by MRI: Correlation between Dynamic and Static Gadolinium-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Microscopic and Macroscopic Signs of Synovial Inflammation,” Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Vol. 16, No. 7, 1998, pp. 743-754.
[11]A. L. Tan, S. F. Tanner, P. G. Conaghan, et al., “Role of Metacarpophalangeal Joint Anatomic Factors in the Distribution of Synovitis and Bone Erosion in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Arthritis & Rheumatism, Vol. 48, No. 5, 2003, pp. 1214-1222.
[12]M. J. de Hair, L. C. Harty, D. M. Gerlag, et al., “Synovial Tissue Analysis for the Discovery of Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers in Patients with Early Arthritis,” The Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 38, No. 9, 2011, pp. 2068-2072.
[13]D. M. Gerlag, K. Raza, L. G. van Baarsen, et al., “EULAR Recommendations for Terminology and Research in Individuals at Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Report from the Study Group for Risk Factors for Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Vol. 71, No. 5, 2012, pp. 638-641.
[14]M. G. van de Sande, M. J. de Hair, C. van der Leij, et al., “Different Stages of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Features of the Synovium in the Preclinical Phase,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Vol. 70, No. 5, 2011, pp. 772-777.
[15]M. G. van de Sande, “Evaluating Antirheumatic Treatments Using Synovial Biopsy: A Recommendation for Standardisation to Be Used in Clinical Trials,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Vol. 70, No. 3, 2011, pp. 423-427.

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario