When Is the Osteoarthritis Label Inappropriate: Clarification of Diagnosis and Responsibility for Clinical Significance

Central JSM Arthritis Bringing Excellence in Open Access Review Article *Corresponding author Bruce Rothschild, Department of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH 44272, USA, When is the Osteoarthritis Email: Submitted: 06 April 2016 Label Inappropriate: Accepted: 28 June 2016 Published: 16 July 2016 Copyright Clarification of Diagnosis and © 2016 Rothschild Responsibility for Clinical OPEN ACCESS Keywords • Spondylosis deformans Significance • Vertebral pathology • Zygapophyseal joints Bruce Rothschild* • Chondromalacia patellae Department of Medicine, Northeast Ohio Medical University, USA • Joint instability • Neuropathic arthropathy • Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease Abstract • Intraarticular corticosteroids Osteoarthritis is the name given not only to a common disease but also erroneously to other phenomena. While well-defined clinically, application of the term in the anthropologic literature is misleading because of use of speculative, actually erroneous criteria. The term erosive osteoarthritis is also problematic. It describes a disorder that is not responsive to standard treatments for osteoarthritis, but does respond to those utilized for calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, suggesting that as the more appropriate diagnosis. Vertebral osteoarthritis (exclusive of the zygapophyseal joints) is also a misnomer. Not only do osteophytes on vertebral centra not represent an arthritis (as no diarthrodial joint is involved), but they are actually asymptomatic. Other misconceptions relate to association of osteoarthritis and weight, more likely related to joint instability and ambulation on artificial surfaces. Perhaps the best natural animal model for osteoarthritis is avian, a subject worthy of future attention. INTRODUCTION osteoarthritis often requires dependence on additional criteria. Criteria for recognition of osteoarthritis osteophytes less than 1 mm in size. Thus, clinical recognition of Santayana suggests that lack of familiarity with history results As the most common form of human arthritis, it might be thought that osteoarthritis would be quite amenable osteoarthritis through human history has merit. The question is to epidemiologic study. While a popular subject of study, how?in repetition Similar (of to errors the developmental and erroneous process thinking) for [7]. creating Ergo, tracking criteria interpretation of the data and comparison of different study applicable in the clinical setting, the anthropological community’s populations are often “mystifying.” The name itself has been problematic. Previous names applied to osteoarthritis (with approach also speculated as to criteria [8-10], but unfortunately degenerative joint disease, gonarthroses, hypertrophic arthritis, left out a very important step [6,11,12]. They failed to validate varying degrees of specificity) include arthritis deformans, have no clinical or medical correlate, and when actually critically osteoarthritis deformans, and osteoarthroses [1]. The most the criteria they developed. Some of the criteria (e.g., porosity) common term had been degenerative joint disease, although the current term in vogue is osteoarthritis. reviewedA major [6,12,13], problem were compromising falsified. anthropologic diagnosis seems to relate to establishment of criteria through circular Any discussion of osteoarthritis is predicated upon its reasoning. Waldron’s [9] article on prevalence of osteoarthritis is exemplary of this genre. He quotes himself, from a postulated set Just as it takes a community to raise a child, it took a committee of untested criteria, and then makes the claim that “presence of todefinition identify and and that validate of the criteriaclinical utilized criteria in forits diagnosisrecognition [2-6]. of His untested criteria are “eburnation, new bone formation hips seem as applicable to other joints. While diarthrodial joint aroundat least two”...”isthe joint marginsrequired or before on the the surface condition of the can joint, be classified.” pitting on osteophytesosteoarthritis are [2-4]. pathognomonic Criteria established for osteoarthritis, for hands, equipmentknees and the joint surface, scoring on the joint surface, and deformation generally utilized for clinical radiology will not allow detection of of the normal contour of the joint.” Pitting (porosity) has no Cite this article: Rothschild B (2016) When is the Osteoarthritis Label Inappropriate: Clarification of Diagnosis and Responsibility for Clinical Significance. JSM Arthritis 1(2): 1009. Rothschild (2016) Email: Central Bringing Excellence in Open Access of osteoarthritis, whether the individual simply be stoic or fail to critically examined in knees, there was no correlation of porosity protect abnormal joints from abuse. Neuropathies predispose to correlation in clinical practice. It is not visualized on x-ray. When development of arthritis by interfering with pain sensation and with normal protective mechanisms that limit excessive shear (pitting) with the documented unequivocal sign of osteoarthritis and compressive forces. of(diarthrodial the study jointseem osteophytes). totally uninterpretable. Since he states Further that certain grouping joints met his criteria (while failing to provide original data), the results Any alteration in cartilage or bone that alters its ability to withstand shocks or handle loading predisposes to does not appear to produce useful information. Bridges’ [8] study,osteophytes unfortunately (vertebral also and include peripheral porosity, joint butosteophytes) appropriately [9] hyperadrenalism, and Paget’s disease are frequently associated withosteoarthritis. osteoarthritis. Growth hormone overproduction (acromegaly), Reanalysis of that data set, deleting the data on porosity should limit the other criteria to lipping (osteophytes) and eburnation. The cartilage damage in osteoarthritis has sometimes agriculturalists. One challenge in interpreting Bridges’ study [8] been referred to as erosive, causing great semantic confusion. isprove that sheuseful sampled in distinguishing the population. patterns Given in the hunger-gatherers vagaries of cemetery and Destructive might be a better term, since the word “erosion” burial practices, biases cannot be excluded if examination is has caused so much confusion. There are no bone erosions in limited to portions of the population, rather than the entire population. times mistakenly been called erosions. Presence of bone erosion infersosteoarthritis an alternative [6,11,14,15], diagnose. although subchondral cysts have at Challenges to population comparisons destroysObservation the cartilage, of diarthrodial resulting injoint “bone osteophytes rubbing on is bone.” sufficient The for making a diagnosis of osteoarthritis [11,14]. Severe damage Study of joints at autopsy, study of clinically symptomatic joints and radiologic surveys reveal quite different information resulting “wear” effect is recognized as grooving and eburnation. that is not directly comparable. Studies of clinic outpatients, when total loss of intervening cartilage results in bone rubbing on bone.The That latter criterion reflects misses the polishing all but the of mostosseous severe articular joint damage.surfaces hospitalized patients and general population surveys (with Studies suggesting decreased osteoarthritis in Alaskan of severe arthritis of any derivation (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, variable participation) reveal very different information [16-21]. spondyloarthropathy,More importantly, it is a calciumnon-diagnostic pyrophosphate sign [5,6,14], deposition the result A critical factor affecting population comparisons is age. Eskimos are misleading [22], as only hand x-rays were examined. disease,Derivation neuropathic of osteoarthritis arthritis). and its interpretation age determination is critical. Use of different aging techniques willOsteoarthritis result in veryis a phenomenondifferent ages of and aging variance [6,11,14,23]. in patterns Thus andthe Osteoarthritis, itself, can be divided into two varieties: primary, and secondary. Primary osteoarthritis is a disorder of frequenciesOne of acrossthe challenges anthropologic to comparisonpopulations [24].of contemporary bony enlargement of the distal two finger joints (as well as other Bridges [8], for example, groups individuals to thirty or over areas of the peripheral skeleton) that tends to run in families. observations to those of antiquity is age-compression of data. As hand involvement (first metacarpal trapezium excepted) studies report older individuals. The proportion of individuals is not significantly affected by treatment and may not be a inand each to betweendecade of ages course 30 impactsand 49, the whereas percentages. most contemporary Thus it might significant source of patient disability, it is often ignored. Most osteoarthritis-related morbidity is related to secondary varieties. Relationship of osteoarthritis to age was, however, independent The term secondary identifies osteoarthritis complicating ofperhaps socioeconomic be appropriate status toin providethe United specific States age-related and Great findings. Britain ligamentousinflammatory, abnormalities, metabolic, and and endocrine alterations diseases or abuse and conditionsrelated to overusecausing mechanicalare typically disadvantage responsible for(to thethe latter. joint). Normal Malalignment, healthy joints are somewhat resistant to development of arthritis, in [25].Challenges to assessment of severity the absence of factors that overwhelm

Load more