Observer Variability of Arthroscopic Cartilage Grading Using the Modified Outerbridge Classification System in the DogFunding None.
21 March 2018
04 December 2018
05 March 2019 (eFirst)
Objective The aim of this study was to determine the inter- and intra-observer variability of the modified Outerbridge cartilage classification system in canine joints evaluated via arthroscopy.
Materials and Methods Fifty arthroscopic videos of canine cartilage were scored by six observers, where three of the observers had significant arthroscopic experience and three had minimal to no experience. The kappa (κ) statistic was used to evaluate overall and individual score inter-observer variability, as well as experience variability. The weighted κ statistic was used to evaluate the overall intra-observer variability for each observer, and for individual score intra-observer variability across experience groups. Landis and Koch cut-offs were used to determine strength of agreement associated with each κ-value.
Results The overall inter-and intra-observer variability of the modified Outerbridge cartilage classification system showed fair and substantial strengths of agreement, respectively. The most extreme scores of 0 and 4 had the best inter- and intra-agreement and the middle scores of 1, 2 and 3 had decreased strengths of agreement. Experience of the observer increased the strength of agreement between the scores.
Clinical Significance The modified Outerbridge classification system is an acceptable method for the evaluation of canine cartilage. Observer agreement is improved if the observer has experience with arthroscopy and viewing cartilage changes, and if the same observer is used for subsequent cartilage evaluations.
Kimberly Agnello and Mary Dell Deweese contributed to conception of study, study design, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. Kei Hayashi, Cara Blake, Katherine Morris and Elizabeth Anglin contributed to conception of study and acquisition of data. Dorothy Brown contributed to conception of study, acquisition of data and data analysis and interpretation. All authors drafted, revised and approved the submitted.
- 1 Halder N. Why does the patient with OA hurt?. In: Brandt KD, Doherty L, Lohmander S. , eds. Osteoarthritis. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998: 255-261
- 2 Johnson JA, Austin C, Breur GJ. Incidence of canine appendicular musculoskeletal disorders in 16 veterinary teaching hospitals from 1980 to 1989. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 1994; 7: 56-69
- 3 Fife RS, Brandt KD, Braunstein EM. , et al. Relationship between arthroscopic evidence of cartilage damage and radiographic evidence of joint space narrowing in early osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34 (04) 377-382
- 4 Brandt KD, Fife RS, Braunstein EM, Katz B. Radiographic grading of the severity of knee osteoarthritis: relation of the Kellgren and Lawrence grade to a grade based on joint space narrowing, and correlation with arthroscopic evidence of articular cartilage degeneration. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34 (11) 1381-1386
- 5 Lysholm J, Hamberg P, Gillquist J. The correlation between osteoarthrosis as seen on radiographs and on arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 1987; 3 (03) 161-165
- 6 Blackburn Jr WD, Bernreuter WK, Rominger M, Loose LL. Arthroscopic evaluation of knee articular cartilage: a comparison with plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging. J Rheumatol 1994; 21 (04) 675-679
- 7 von Engelhardt LV, Lahner M, Klussmann A. , et al. Arthroscopy vs. MRI for a detailed assessment of cartilage disease in osteoarthritis: diagnostic value of MRI in clinical practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11: 75
- 8 Broderick LS, Turner DA, Renfrew DL, Schnitzer TJ, Huff JP, Harris C. Severity of articular cartilage abnormality in patients with osteoarthritis: evaluation with fast spin-echo MR vs arthroscopy. Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162 (01) 99-103
- 9 Cook JL, Kuroki K, Visco D, Pelletier JP, Schulz L, Lafeber FP. The OARSI histopathology initiative - recommendations for histological assessments of osteoarthritis in the dog. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18 (Suppl. 03) S66-S79
- 10 Acebes C, Roman-Blas JA, Delgado-Baeza E, Palacios I, Herrero-Beaumont G. Correlation between arthroscopic and histopathological grading systems of articular cartilage lesions in knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17 (02) 205-212
- 11 Brommer H, Rijkenhuizen AB, Brama PA, Barneveld A, van Weeren PR. Accuracy of diagnostic arthroscopy for the assessment of cartilage damage in the equine metacarpophalangeal joint. Equine Vet J 2004; 36 (04) 331-335
- 12 Noyes FR, Stabler CL. A system for grading articular cartilage lesions at arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 1989; 17 (04) 505-513
- 13 Dougados M, Ayral X, Listrat V. , et al. The SFA system for assessing articular cartilage lesions at arthroscopy of the knee. Arthroscopy 1994; 10 (01) 69-77
- 14 Outerbridge RE. The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961; 43-B: 752-757
- 15 Bentley G, Dowd G. Current concepts of etiology and treatment of chondromalacia patellae. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1984; (189) 209-228
- 16 Casscells SW. Gross pathological changes in the knee joint of the aged individual: a study of 300 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1978; (132) 225-232
- 17 Insall J, Falvo KA, Wise DW. Chondromalacia patellae. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976; 58 (01) 1-8
- 18 Cameron ML, Briggs KK, Steadman JR. Reproducibility and reliability of the outerbridge classification for grading chondral lesions of the knee arthroscopically. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31 (01) 83-86
- 19 Brismar BH, Wredmark T, Movin T, Leandersson J, Svensson O. Observer reliability in the arthroscopic classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (01) 42-47
- 20 Javed A, Siddique M, Vaghela M, Hui AC. Interobserver variations in intra-articular evaluation during arthroscopy of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (01) 48-49
- 21 Marx RG, Connor J, Lyman S. , et al; Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network. Multirater agreement of arthroscopic grading of knee articular cartilage. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (11) 1654-1657
- 22 Omoumi P, Michoux N, Larbi A. , et al. Multirater agreement for grading the femoral and tibial cartilage surface lesions at CT arthrography and analysis of causes of disagreement. Eur J Radiol 2017; 88: 95-101
- 23 Agnello KA, Holsworth IG, Caceres AV. , et al. Articular cartilage lesions of the patellofemoral joint in dogs with naturally occurring cranial cruciate ligament disease. Vet Surg 2014; 43 (03) 308-315
- 24 Holsworth IG, Schulz KS, Kass PH. , et al. Comparison of arthroscopic and radiographic abnormalities in the hip joints of juvenile dogs with hip dysplasia. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005; 227 (07) 1087-1094
- 25 Kaufman K, Beale BS, Thames HD, Saunders WB. Articular cartilage scores in cranial cruciate ligament-deficient dogs with or without bucket handle tears of the medial meniscus. Vet Surg 2017; 46 (01) 120-129
- 26 Chu CR, Szczodry M, Bruno S. Animal models for cartilage regeneration and repair. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010; 16 (01) 105-115
- 27 Mastbergen SC, Marijnissen AC, Vianen ME. , et al. Inhibition of COX-2 by celecoxib in the canine groove model of osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006; 45 (04) 405-413
- 28 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
- 29 Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG. , et al; National Arthritis Data Workgroup. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58 (01) 26-35
- 30 Fox SM. Pathophysiology of osteoarthritic pain. In: Chronic Pain in Small Animals. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2009: 74-96
- 31 Spahn G, Plettenberg H, Kahl E, Klinger HM, Mückley T, Hofmann GO. Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. A new method for arthroscopic evaluation of low grade degenerated cartilage lesions. Results of a pilot study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007; 8: 47