FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / J Orthop Res / Cationic contrast-enhanced computed tomography distinguishes...
Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society2020; 39(8); 1647-1657; doi: 10.1002/jor.24894

Cationic contrast-enhanced computed tomography distinguishes between reparative, degenerative, and healthy equine articular cartilage.

Abstract: Cationic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is a quantitative imaging technique that characterizes articular cartilage, though its efficacy in differentiating repair tissue from other disease states is undetermined. We hypothesized that cationic CECT attenuation will distinguish between reparative, degenerative, and healthy equine articular cartilage and will reflect biochemical, mechanical, and histologic properties. Chondral defects were created in vivo on equine femoropatellar joint surfaces. Within defects, calcified cartilage was retained (Repair 1) or removed (Repair 2). At sacrifice, plugs were collected from within defects, and at locations bordering (adjacent site) and remote to defects along with site-matched controls. Articular cartilage was analyzed via CECT using CA4+ to assess glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content, compressive modulus (E ), and International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) II histologic score. Comparisons of variables were made between sites using mixed model analysis and between variables with correlations. Cationic CECT attenuation was significantly lower in Repair 1 (1478 ± 333 Hounsfield units [HUs]), Repair 2 (1229 ± 191 HUs), and adjacent (2139 ± 336 HUs) sites when compared with site-matched controls (2587 ± 298, 2505 ± 184, and 2563 ± 538 HUs, respectively; all p < .0001). Cationic CECT attenuation was significantly higher at remote sites (2928 ± 420 HUs) compared with Repair 1, Repair 2, and adjacent sites (all p < .0001). Cationic CECT attenuation correlated with ICRS II score (r = .79), GAG (r = .76), and E (r = .71; all p < .0001). Cationic CECT distinguishes between reparative, degenerative, and healthy articular cartilage and highly correlates with biochemical, mechanical, and histological tissue properties.
© 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-11-02 PubMed ID: 33104251DOI: 10.1002/jor.24894Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article proposes that Cationic Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) can be used to differentiate healthy, degenerating and healing cartilage in horses, indicating the method could help in the study and treatment of joint diseases.

Understanding the Technique

  • The method used in this study, Cationic Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT), is a type of imaging methodology that is commonly used in assessing articular cartilage, the smooth, white tissue that covers the ends of bones where they come together to form joints.
  • What sets CECT apart is its particular use of a cationic contrast agent (in this case, CA4+), which helps increase the visibility of certain structures or fluids within the body during a CT scan.

Casting the Hypothesis

  • Researches theorized that the attenuation (or reduction in force, or effect) exposed by CECT will show clear distinctions between reparative (healing), degenerative (deteriorating), and healthy equine articular cartilage.
  • Further, they posited that CECT will offer insights into cartilage’s biochemical, mechanical, and histological properties which can provide vital data about the status of the cartilage, be it healthy or disease-affected.

Conducting the Experiment

  • To test their hypothesis, they created defects on the joint surfaces of live horses. Experimentally-generated defects retained the calcified cartilage (dominated by a type of cartilage that eventually turns to bone) or had it removed.
  • After the horses were euthanized, tissue samples were collected from the injured sites, sites close to the injuries (adjacent sites), and sites far from the injury (remote).
  • The harvested articular cartilage samples were then analyzed through CECT. Measurements for the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) – a molecule in the body that supports and provides adhesion in cartilage – content, as well as the compressive modulus (E), a measurement of the materials resistance to being deformed, were included in the study.

Findings and Conclusion

  • The results showed CECT attenuation was significantly different in Repair 1, Repair 2, and adjacent sites compared to their corresponding control sites.
  • Moreover, the cationic CECT attenuation was noticeably higher in remote sites when compared to Repair 1, Repair 2, and adjacent sites.
  • The experiment established that CECT attenuation was positively correlated with the ICRS II score (a cartilage repair grading system), amount of GAG, and compressive E-Modulus.
  • To sum up, the results validated their hypothesis – the CECT did distinguish between healthy, degenerative and reparative cartilage based on the attenuation exhibited in the CT scans, demonstrating its potential for clinical use in diagnosing cartilage-related disease and injuries. The positive correlations with other mechanical and biochemical properties of the tissues further support this potential.

Cite This Article

APA
Nelson BB, Mäkelä JTA, Lawson TB, Patwa AN, Snyder BD, McIlwraith CW, Grinstaff MW, Goodrich LR, Kawcak CE. (2020). Cationic contrast-enhanced computed tomography distinguishes between reparative, degenerative, and healthy equine articular cartilage. J Orthop Res, 39(8), 1647-1657. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24894

Publication

Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society
ISSN: 1554-527X
NlmUniqueID: 8404726
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 39
Issue: 8
Pages: 1647-1657

Researcher Affiliations

Nelson, Brad B
  • Orthopaedic Research Center, C. Wayne McIlwraith Translational Medicine Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Mäkelä, Janne T A
  • Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
  • Departments of Chemistry, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Department Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Lawson, Taylor B
  • Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Departments of Chemistry, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Department Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Patwa, Amit N
  • Departments of Chemistry, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Department Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Deparment of Chemistry, School of Science, Navrachana University, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
Snyder, Brian D
  • Center for Advanced Orthopaedic Studies, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
McIlwraith, C Wayne
  • Orthopaedic Research Center, C. Wayne McIlwraith Translational Medicine Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Grinstaff, Mark W
  • Departments of Chemistry, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Department Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Goodrich, Laurie R
  • Orthopaedic Research Center, C. Wayne McIlwraith Translational Medicine Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Kawcak, Chris E
  • Orthopaedic Research Center, C. Wayne McIlwraith Translational Medicine Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Cartilage, Articular / pathology
  • Cations / analysis
  • Contrast Media
  • Glycosaminoglycans / analysis
  • Horses
  • Tomography, X-Ray Computed / methods

References

This article includes 50 references
  1. McIlwraith CW, Frisbie DD, Kawcak CE. The horse as a model of naturally occurring osteoarthritis.. Bone Joint Res 2012;1:297-309.
  2. Frisbie DD, Al-Sobayil F, Billinghurst RC, Kawcak CE, McIlwraith CW. Changes in synovial fluid and serum biomarkers with exercise and early osteoarthritis in horses.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008;16:1196-1204.
  3. Bekkers JEJ, Creemers LB, Dhert WJA, Saris DBF. Diagnostic modalities for diseased articular cartilage-from defect to degeneration: a review.. Cartilage 2010;1:157-164.
  4. Roemer FW, Eckstein F, Hayashi D, Guermazi A. The role of imaging in osteoarthritis.. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014;28:31-60.
  5. Bansal PN, Joshi NS, Entezari V, Grinstaff MW, Snyder BD. Contrast enhanced computed tomography can predict the glycosaminoglycan content and biomechanical properties of articular cartilage.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:184-191.
  6. Taylor C, Carballido-Gamio J, Majumdar S, Li X. Comparison of quantitative imaging of cartilage for osteoarthritis: T2, T1ρ, dGEMRIC and contrast-enhanced computed tomography.. Mag Res Imag 2009;27:779-784.
  7. Potter HG, Black BR, Chong LR. New techniques in articular cartilage imaging.. Clin Sports Med 2009;28:77-94.
  8. Hontoir F, Clegg P, Nisolle JF, Tew S, Vandeweerd JM. Magnetic resonance compositional imaging of articular cartilage: what can we expect in veterinary medicine?. Vet J 2015;205:11-20.
  9. Nelson BB, Kawcak CE, Barrett MF, McIlwraith CW, Grinstaff MW, Goodrich LR. Recent advances in articular cartilage evaluation using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.. Equine Vet J 2018;50:564-579.
  10. Joshi NS, Bansal PN, Stewart RC, Snyder BD, Grinstaff MW. Effect of contrast agent charge on visualization of articular cartilage using computed tomography: exploiting electrostatic interactions for improved sensitivity.. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131:13234-13235.
  11. Bansal PN, Joshi NS, Entezari V. Cationic contrast agents improve quantification of glycosaminoglycan (GAG) content by contrast enhanced CT imaging of cartilage.. J Orthop Res 2011;29:704-709.
  12. Bansal PN, Stewart RC, Entezari V, Snyder BD, Grinstaff MW. Contrast agent electrostatic attraction rather than repulsion to glycosaminoglycans affords a greater contrast uptake ratio and improved quantitative CT imaging in cartilage.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011;19:970-976.
  13. Lakin BA, Ellis DJ, Shelofsky JS, Freedman JD, Grinstaff MW, Snyder BD. Contrast-enhanced CT facilitates rapid, non-destructive assessment of cartilage and bone properties of the human metacarpal.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015;23:2158-2166.
  14. Lakin BA, Grasso DJ, Shah SS. Cationic agent contrast-enhanced computed tomography imaging of cartilage correlates with the compressive modulus and coefficient of friction.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013;21:60-68.
  15. Lakin BA, Patel H, Holland C. Contrast-enhanced CT using a cationic contrast agent enables non-destructive assessment of the biochemical and biomechanical properties of mouse tibial plateau cartilage.. J Orthop Res 2016;34:1130-1138.
  16. Kallioniemi AS, Jurvelin JS, Nieminen MT, Lammi MJ, Töyräs J. Contrast agent enhanced pQCT of articular cartilage.. Phys Med Biol 2007;52:1209-1219.
  17. Kulmala KAM, Karjalainen HM, Kokkonen HT. Diffusion of ionic and non-ionic contrast agents in articular cartilage with increased cross-linking-contribution of steric and electrostatic effects.. Med Eng Phys 2013;35:1415-1420.
  18. McIlwraith CW, Fortier LA, Frisbie DD, Nixon AJ. Equine models of articular cartilage repair.. Cartilage 2011;2:317-326.
  19. Nelson BB, Mäkelä JTA, Lawson TB. Evaluation of equine articular cartilage degeneration after mechanical impact injury using cationic contrast-enhanced computed tomography.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019;27:1219-1228.
  20. Strauss EJ, Goodrich LR, Chen CT, Hidaka C, Nixon AJ. Biochemical and biomechanical properties of lesion and adjacent articular cartilage after chondral defect repair in an equine model.. Am J Sports Med 2005;33:1647-1653.
  21. American Association of Equine Practitioners. Guide for Veterinary Service and Judging of Equestrian Events.. Lexington, KY: American Association of Equine Practitioners; 1991.
  22. Frisbie DD, Bowman SM, Colhoun HA, DiCarlo EF, Kawcak CE, McIlwraith CW. Evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation via a collagen membrane in equine articular defects-results at 12 and 18 months.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008;16:667-679.
  23. Hurtig MB, Fretz PB, Doige CE. Effects of lesion size and location on equine articular cartilage repair.. Can J Vet Res 1988;52:137-146.
  24. Frisbie DD, Trotter GW, Powers BE. Arthroscopic subchondral bone plate microfracture technique augments healing of large chondral defects in the radial carpal bone and medial femoral condyle of horses.. Vet Surg 1999;28:242-255.
  25. Frisbie DD, Cross MW, McIlwraith CW. A comparative study of articular cartilage thickness in the stifle of animal species used in human pre-clinical studies compared to articular cartilage thickness in the human knee.. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2006;19:142-146.
  26. Changoor A, Hurtig MB, Runciman RJ, Quesnel AJ, Dickey JP, Lowerison M. Mapping of donor and recipient site properties for osteochondral graft reconstruction of subchondral cystic lesions in the equine stifle joint.. Equine Vet J 2006;38:330-336.
  27. Brittberg M, Winalski CS. Evaluation of cartilage injuries and repair.. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A(suppl 2):58-69.
  28. Urban JP, Hall AC, Gehl KA. Regulation of matrix synthesis rates by the ionic and osmotic environment of articular chondrocytes.. J Cell Physiol 1993;154:262-270.
  29. Huttu MRJ, Puhakka J, Mäkelä JTA. Cell-tissue interactions in osteoarthritic human hip joint articular cartilage.. Connect Tissue Res 2014;55:282-291.
  30. June RK, Mejia KL, Barone JR, Fyhrie DP. Cartilage stress-relaxation is affected by both the charge concentration and valence of solution cations.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009;17:669-676.
  31. Nelson BB, Stewart RC, Kawcak CE. Quantitative evaluation of equine articular cartilage using cationic contrast-enhanced computed tomography.. Cartilage 2018:1-11.
    doi: 10.1177/1947603518812562google scholar: lookup
  32. Lippiello L, Hall D, Mankin HJ. Collagen synthesis in normal and osteoarthritic human cartilage.. J Clin Invest 1977;59:593-600.
  33. Venn M, Maroudas A. Chemical composition and swelling of normal and osteoarthrotic femoral head cartilage. I. Chemical composition.. Ann Rheum Dis 1977;36:121-129.
  34. Mainil-Varlet P, Van Damme B, Nesic D, Knutsen G, Kandel R, Roberts S. A new histology scoring system for the assessment of the quality of human cartilage repair: ICRS II.. Am J Sports Med 2010;38:880-890.
  35. Bland JM, Altman DG. Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 1-correlation within subjects.. BMJ 1995;310:446.
  36. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
  37. Gelse K, Riedel D, Pachowsky M, Hennig FF, Trattnig S, Welsch GH. Limited integrative repair capacity of native cartilage autografts within cartilage defects in a sheep model.. J Orthop Res 2015;33:390-397.
  38. Hoemann C, Lafantaisie-Favreau CH, Lascau-Coman V, Chen G, Guzmán-Morales J. The cartilage-bone interface.. J Knee Surg 2012;25:85-97.
  39. McIlwraith CW, Frisbie DD, Kawcak CE, Fuller CJ, Hurtig M, Cruz A. The OARSI histopathology initiative-recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the horse.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:S93-S105.
  40. Schmitz N, Laverty S, Kraus VB, Aigner T. Basic methods in histopathology of joint tissues.. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:S113-S116.
  41. Camplejohn KL, Allard SA. Limitations of safranin ‘O’ staining in proteoglycan-depleted cartilage demonstrated with monoclonal antibodies.. Histochemistry 1988;89:185-188.
  42. Maroudas A. Balance between swelling pressure and collagen tension in normal and degenerate cartilage.. Nature 1976;260:808-809.
  43. van Weeren PR. General anatomy and physiology of joints.. In: McIlwraith CW , Frisbie DD , Kawcak CE , eds. Joint Disease in the Horse. 2nd ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2016:1-24.
  44. Kol A, Arzi B, Athanasiou KA. Companion animals: translational scientist's new best friends.. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:1-8.
  45. Torrie AM, Kesler WW, Elkin J, Gallo RA. Osteochondral allograft.. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015;8:413-422.
  46. Valiyaveettil M, Mort JS, McDevitt CA. The concentration, gene expression, and spatial distribution of aggrecan in canine articular cartilage, meniscus, and anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments: a new molecular distinction between hyaline cartilage and fibrocartilage in the knee joint.. Connect Tissue Res 2005;46:83-91.
  47. Nguyen AM, Levenston ME. Comparison of osmotic swelling influences on meniscal fibrocartilage and articular cartilage tissue mechanics in compression and shear.. J Orthop Res 2012;30:95-102.
  48. LeRoux MA, Arokoski J, Vail TP. Simultaneous changes in the mechanical properties, quantitative collagen organization, and proteoglycan concentration of articular cartilage following canine meniscectomy.. J Orthop Res 2000;18:383-392.
  49. Silver FH, Bradica G, Tria A. Relationship among biomechanical, biochemical, and cellular changes associated with osteoarthritis.. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 2001;29:373-391.
  50. Honkanen MKM, Matikka H, Honkanen JTJ. Imaging of proteoglycan and water contents in human articular cartilage with full-body CT using dual contrast technique.. J Orthop Res 2019;37:1059-1070.

Citations

This article has been cited 2 times.
  1. Honkanen MKM, Mohammadi A, Te Moller NCR, Ebrahimi M, Xu W, Plomp S, Pouran B, Lehto VP, Brommer H, van Weeren PR, Korhonen RK, Töyräs J, Mäkelä JTA. Dual-contrast micro-CT enables cartilage lesion detection and tissue condition evaluation ex vivo.. Equine Vet J 2023 Mar;55(2):315-324.
    doi: 10.1111/evj.13573pubmed: 35353399google scholar: lookup
  2. Gao X, Patwa AN, Deng Z, Utsunomiya H, Grinstaff MW, Ruzbarsky JJ, Snyder BD, Ravuri S, Philippon MJ, Huard J. Influence of fixation on CA4+ contrast enhanced microCT of articular cartilage and subsequent feasibility for histological evaluation.. Am J Transl Res 2021;13(8):8921-8937.
    pubmed: 34540005
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.