Share This Article:

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

Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:170KB) PP. 1-5
DOI: 10.4236/ijcm.2013.412A2001    3,059 Downloads   3,897 Views  


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.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.