Comparison of Radiography and Histopathologic Analysis in the Evaluation of Hip Arthritis
Julia Crim1, Alexander Oserowsky2, Lester J. Layfield3 and Robert L. Schmidt4
Share Share
+ Affiliations:
Citation: American Journal of Roentgenology: 1-7. 10.2214/AJR.19.21277
AbstractFull TextReferencesPDFPDF PlusAdd to FavoritesPermissionsDownload Citation
ABSTRACT :
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to establish the correlation of radiography findings with findings of gross and microscopic histopathologic analysis to assess the usefulness of radiography in preoperative assessment for hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Radiology and pathology reports from 953 consecutive femoral head resections were reviewed to establish the correlation of radiography and pathology findings as used in routine clinical practice. In 83 cases MR images were also available for review. Both radiologists and pathologists prospectively used a four-grade scale of absent, mild, moderate, or severe osteoarthritis. The grades established by radiologists and pathologists were compared by means of both the four-grade system and a simplified two-grade system of none-to-mild versus moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.

RESULTS. The mean patient age was 60 years (range, 18–94 years). Resection was performed for osteoarthritis in 941 cases and for infection, inflammatory arthritis, avascular necrosis, fracture, or tumor in the others. Radiographs showed severe osteoarthritis in 62.3% of patients and no or mild osteoarthritis in 17.7%. Observed agreement between radiology and pathology findings was 90% for both the four-grade and two-grade osteoarthritis scales. Findings on standing radiographs were more concordant with pathology results than findings on supine radiographs (odds ratio, 1.4). Observed agreement between radiography and MRI was 78%. There were significant discrepancies between radiography grade and pathology grade in 2.2% of cases. Observed agreement of MRI and pathologic analysis was 76% (κ = 0.64).

CONCLUSION. Radiography findings are a reliable indicator of severity of osteoarthritis. This is important because previous studies have shown that patients with no or mild osteoarthritis are less likely to benefit from arthroplasty. If evidence of moderate or severe osteoarthritis is not present on radiographs, further investigation is warranted before proceeding to arthroplasty.

Keywords: histopathology, osteoarthritis, radiographic diagnosis, radiologic-pathologic correlation

Acknowledgment

Previous sectionNext section
We thank James Derek Stensby for retrospective review of 100 cases in our series.

References

Previous section
1. Mancuso CA, Ranawat CS, Esdaile JM, Johanson NA, Charlson ME. Indications for total hip and total knee arthroplasties: results of orthopaedic surveys. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11:34–46 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
2. Gademan MG, Hofstede SN, Vliet Vlieland TP, Nelissen RG, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Indication criteria for total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: a state-of-the-science overview. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17:463 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
3. Dreinhöfer KE, Dieppe P, Stürmer T, et al. Indications for total hip replacement: comparison of assessments of orthopaedic surgeons and referring physicians. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65:1346–1350 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
4. Hofstede SN, Gademan MG, Vliet Vlieland TP, Nelissen RG, Marang-van de Mheen PJ. Preoperative predictors for outcomes after total hip replacement in patients with osteoarthritis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17:212 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
5. Crawford RW, Murray DW. Total hip replacement: indications for surgery and risk factors for failure. Ann Rheum Dis 1997; 56:455–457 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
6. Tilbury C, Holtslag MJ, Tordoir RL, et al. Outcome of total hip arthroplasty, but not of total knee arthroplasty, is related to the preoperative radiographic severity of osteoarthritis: a prospective cohort study of 573 patients. Acta Orthop 2016; 87:67–71 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
7. Keurentjes JC, Fiocco M, So-Osman C, et al. Patients with severe radiographic osteoarthritis have a better prognosis in physical functioning after hip and knee replacement: a cohort-study. PLoS One 2013; 8:e59500 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
8. Gold GE, Cicuttini F, Crema MD, et al. OARSI clinical trials recommendations: hip imaging in clinical trials in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23:716–731 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
9. Hiza E, Dierckman BD, Guanche C, Applegate G, Shah D, Ryu JH. Reliability of the Tönnis classification and its correlation with magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative chondral damage. Arthroscopy 2019; 35:403–408 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
10. Terjesen T, Gunderson RB. Radiographic evaluation of osteoarthritis of the hip: an inter-observer study of 61 hips treated for late-detected developmental hip dislocation. Acta Orthop 2012; 83:185–189 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
11. Reijman M, Hazes JM, Pols HA, Bernsen RM, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. Validity and reliability of three definitions of hip osteoarthritis: cross sectional and longitudinal approach. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63:1427–1433 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
12. Croft P, Cooper C, Wickham C, Coggon D. Defining osteoarthritis of the hip for epidemiologic studies. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 132:514–522 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
13. Altman RD, Gold GE. Atlas of individual radio-graphic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteo-arthritis Cartilage 2007; 15(suppl A):A1–A56 [Google Scholar]
14. Custers RJ, Creemers LB, Verbout AJ, van Rijen MH, Dhert WJ, Saris DB. Reliability, reproducibility and variability of the traditional Histologic/Histochemical Grading System vs the new OARSI Osteo-arthritis Cartilage Histopathology Assessment System. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15:1241–1248 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
15. Pritzker KP, Gay S, Jimenez SA, et al. Osteoarthritis cartilage histopathology: grading and staging. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14:13–29 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159–174 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
17. Dieppe P, Judge A, Williams S, et al.; EUROHIP Study Group. Variations in the pre-operative status of patients coming to primary hip replacement for osteoarthritis in European orthopaedic centres. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009; 10:19 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
18. Kinds MB, Welsing PM, Vignon EP, et al. A systematic review of the association between radio-graphic and clinical osteoarthritis of hip and knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19:768–778 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
19. Braun HJ, Gold GE. Diagnosis of osteoarthritis: imaging. Bone 2012; 51:278–288 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
20. Roemer FW, Eckstein F, Hayashi D, Guermazi A. The role of imaging in osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014; 28:31–60 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
21. Hodler J, Resnick D. Current status of imaging of articular cartilage. Skeletal Radiol 1996; 25:703–709 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
22. Roemer FW, Crema MD, Trattnig S, Guermazi A. Advances in imaging of osteoarthritis and cartilage. Radiology 2011; 260:332–354 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
23. Lee S, Nardo L, Kumar D, et al. Scoring hip osteo-arthritis with MRI (SHOMRI): a whole joint osteoarthritis evaluation system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41:1549–1557 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
24. Kim C, Nevitt MC, Niu J, et al. Association of hip pain with radiographic evidence of hip osteoarthritis: diagnostic test study. BMJ 2015; 351:h5983 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
25. Sun Y, Günther KP, Brenner H. Reliability of radiographic grading of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Scand J Rheumatol 1997; 26:155–165 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
26. Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Trousdale R, et al. Radio-graphic evaluation of the hip has limited reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467:666–675 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
27. Valera M, Ibañez N, Sancho R, Tey M. Reliability of Tönnis classification in early hip arthritis: a useless reference for hip-preserving surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136:27–33 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
28. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67:267–277 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
29. McCambridge J, Kypri K, Elbourne D. Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67:845–849 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
30. Nilsdotter AK, Aurell Y, Siösteen AK, Lohmander LS, Roos HP. Radiographic stage of osteoarthritis or sex of the patient does not predict one year outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2001; 60:228–232 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
31. Quintana JM, Aróstegui I, Azkarate J, et al. Evaluation of explicit criteria for total hip joint replacement. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:1200–1208 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
32. Ghomrawi HM, Schackman BR, Mushlin AI. Appropriateness criteria and elective procedures: total joint arthroplasty. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:2467–2469 [Crossref] [Medline] [Google Scholar]
Address correspondence to J. Crim (crimj@health.missouri.edu).



Read More: https://www.ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.19.21277