Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May;30(5):671-680.
doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.11.019. Epub 2021 Dec 7.

Three-dimensional analysis for quantification of knee joint space width with weight-bearing CT: comparison with non-weight-bearing CT and weight-bearing radiography

B Fritz  1 , J Fritz  2 , S F Fucentese  3 , C W A Pfirrmann  4 , R Sutter  5
Affiliations
Free article

Three-dimensional analysis for quantification of knee joint space width with weight-bearing CT: comparison with non-weight-bearing CT and weight-bearing radiography

B Fritz et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2022 May.
Free article

Abstract

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.

Keywords: 3-D imaging; Cone-beam computed tomography; Knee joint; Osteoarthritis; Weight-bearing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in