Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Factors predicting radiological progression

From: Prognostic factors for progression of osteoarthritis of the hip: a systematic review

Prognostic factor Studies Associations Best-evidence synthesis
Patient variables
 No association
  Family history of OA Moderate evidence for no association
  3 cohorts [25, 60, 65] No, no, no
  Body mass index Moderate evidence for no association
  4 cohorts [25, 50, 61, 65] No, no, no, no
 Conflicting evidence
  Higher age at baseline or at first symptoms Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [32] 4 cohorts [35, 50, 60, 65] Positive No, positive, positive, no
  Female Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [32] 6 cohorts [25, 27, 35, 50, 60, 65] Positive No, no, no, no, positive, no
Disease characteristics
 Faster or more progression
  More limitations in physical function at baseline Moderate evidence for more progression
  1 low risk of bias cohort [32] 1 cohort [60] Positive Positive
  Hip pain present at baseline or on most days for a least 1 month in the past year Moderate evidence for more progression
  1 low risk of bias cohort [47] 1 cohort [60] Positive Positive
 No association
  Forestier’s disease Moderate evidence for no association
  3 cohorts [25, 50, 65] No, no, no
  Diabetes mellitus Limited evidence for no association
  2 cohorts [25, 60] No, no
  Bilateral hip OA Limited evidence for no association
  2 cohorts [25, 65] No, no
  Generalized OA Limited evidence for no association
  2 cohorts [25, 65] No, no
Chemical or imaging markers
 Faster or more progression
  Subchondral sclerosis Moderate evidence for more progression
  1 low risk of bias cohort [47] 1 cohort [33] Positive Positive
  Neck width of the femoral head Limited evidence for more progression
  1 low risk of bias cohort [21] Positive
  Osteocalcin (OC) Limited evidence for less progression
  1 low risk of bias cohort [63] Negative
 No association
  C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CTX-I) Strong evidence for no association
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63] No, no
  Cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) Strong evidence for no association
  3 low risk of bias cohorts [44, 53, 63] 1 cohort [26] No, no, no Positive
  N-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (NTX-I) Strong evidence for no association
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [44, 63] No, no
  N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PINP) Strong evidence for no association
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63] No, no
  N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type III (PIIINP) Strong evidence for no association
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63] No, no
  High-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) Moderate evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [53] 1 cohort [45] No No
  Angle of the femoral head Moderate evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [21] 2 cohorts [20, 65] No No, no
  Acetabular osteophytes only Moderate evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [47] 1 cohort [33] No No
  N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type IIA (PIIANP) Limited evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [63] No
  Chondroitin sulphate 846 (CS846) Limited evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [63] No
  Cartilage glycoprotein 40 (YKL-40) Limited evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [53] No
  Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-1) Limited evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [53] No
  Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP-3) Limited evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [53] No
  Neck length of the femoral head Limited evidence for no association
  1 low risk of bias cohort [21] No
 Conflicting evidence
  Bone mineral content Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [21] Conflicted$
  Area/size of the hip joint Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [21] Conflicted$$
  C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type II (CTX-II) Conflicting evidence
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63] 1 cohort [59] Positive, no Positive
  Hyaluronic acid (HA) Conflicting evidence
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [53, 63] 1 cohort [23] Positive, no No
  Atrophic bone response (no osteophytes present) Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [47] 3 cohorts [25, 50, 65] No Positive, positive, no
  Subchondral cysts Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [47] 1 cohort [33] Positive No
  Decrease in joint space width at baseline Conflicting evidence
  1 low risk of bias cohort [32] 2 cohorts [25, 60] Positive No, positive
  Superior or (supero) lateral migration of the femoral head Conflicting evidence
  2 low risk of bias cohorts [32, 47] 2 cohorts [25, 50] Positive, no No, positive
  Higher K-L grade at baseline Conflicting evidence
  4 cohorts [33, 50, 60, 65] No, positive, positive, no
  Acetabular index (Horizontal toit externe angle) Conflicting evidence
  2 cohorts [20, 65] Conflicted$$$, no
  Wiberg’s center edge angle (CEA) Conflicting evidence
  2 cohorts [20, 65] No, negative
  1. $BMC of superior (p = 0.009) and medial (p = 0.019) quart femoral head, arc regions 2–4 (p = 0.02, 0.001, 0.003, respectively), and the acetabular arc was higher in patients with progression than without progression. BMC of the femoral neck (p = 0.17), intertrochanteric area (p = 0.9), trochanteric area (p = 0.6), and inferior (p = 0.08) and lateral (p = 0.06) quart femoral head and arc region 1 (p = 0.19) of acetabular arc was not significantly different between patients with or without progression
  2. $$The area/size of superior (p = 0.002), medial (p = 0.002), inferior (p = 0.003), and lateral (p = 0.003) femoral head and of arc regions 2–4 (p = 0.007, 0.001 and 0.005 respectively) of acetabular arc was higher in patients with progression than without progression. The area/size of the femoral neck (p = 0.6), intertrochanteric area (p = 0.16), trochanteric area (p = 0.4), and arc region 1 (p = 0.2) of the acetabular arc was not significantly different between patients with progression and without progression.
  3. $$$A statistically significant association was found between the acetabular index and progression defined as ≥ 1 increase in joint space narrowing; however, no statistically significant association was found between the acetabular index and progression defined as ≥ 1 increase in K-L grade