Infrapatellar fat pad in the knee: is local fat good or bad for knee osteoarthritis?

Table 3 Associations between IPFP area, cartilage volume and cartilage defects

	Univariable	Multivariable*	Multivariable**
Cartilage volume, β (95% CI)
Medial tibial, ml/cm²	0.27 (0.24, 0.30)	0.09 (0.05, 0.13)	0.06 (0.02, 0.10)
Lateral tibial, ml/cm²	0.34 (0.31, 0.37)	0.11 (0.07, 0.16)	0.08 (0.04, 0.13)
Patellar, ml/cm²	0.44 (0.39, 0.48)	0.20 (0.14, 0.26)	0.16 (0.10, 0.23)
Cartilage defects, odds ratio (95% CI)
Medial tibial	1.15 (0.96, 1.37)	0.72 (0.53, 0.96)	0.58 (0.41, 0.81)
Medial femoral	1.04 (0.91, 1.19)	0.98 (0.79, 1.22)	0.93 (0.74, 1.18)
Lateral tibial	1.00 (0.87, 1.15)	0.66 (0.52, 0.84)	0.53 (0.40, 0.71)
Lateral femoral	1.22 (1.03, 1.45)	0.84 (0.63, 1.11)	0.73 (0.53, 1.00)
Patellar	0.96 (0.86, 1.07)	0.91 (0.76, 1.09)	0.84 (0.69, 1.02)

*Adjusted for age, sex, height, weight, tibial bone size, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, and patellofemoral synovitis. **Further adjusted for radiographic osteoarthritis. Significant differences are shown in bold. ml/cm², with per-cm² increase in IPFP area, cartilage volume increases in ml.

ISSN: 1478-6362