Abstract

Painful OA is linked to CNS changes in pain processing. Temporal summation of pain (TSP) is a measure of one such CNS change, central sensitization. TSP is defined using a series (≥0.33Hz) of painful stimuli and is a predictor of postoperative pain, experienced by 20% of patients after total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. This study has developed a protocol to use functional MRI to assess CNS changes in OA pain processing.

This pilot includes 3 participants with chronic knee OA pain awaiting TKR (62 ± 4.4) and 5 healthy volunteers (50 ± 13.6). 3-Tesla BOLD fMRI brain scans were recorded during short series of one second painful stimuli, applied using an automated inflatable cuff to the calf muscle of the leg with the affected knee or left side in healthy volunteers. The pain intensity at onset and during the 10 painful stimuli were recorded using a numerical rating scale. The pattern of brain activation was averaged across noxious stimuli, and the differential activation compared the 1st vs. 10th (last) stimulus. Bone marrow lesions (BMLs), synovitis and effusion size were scored from 3-Tesla knee MRI's using MOAKS scoring.

TSP was raised in OA patients compared to control group (p=0.023). TSP brain activity in the chronic OA patients displayed higher signal within the subgenual anterior cingulate (sgACC) compared to healthy volunteers. Knee MRI identified OA patient's exhibited higher BML scores (p=0.038) and more knee effusion (p=0.018), but the lack of synovitis did not differ from control group (p=0.107).

Enhanced TSP in chronic knee OA pain may be linked with augmented responses in emotional circuitry. BMLs and effusion size appear to contribute more with pain than synovitis. These results may help understand sensitization to improve outcomes for patients with knee OA undergoing TKR surgery.

Purpose: Core needle biopsy is increasingly accepted for the diagnosis of bone and soft-tissue tumours. Advantages over open biopsy include reduced morbidity, time and cost; however diagnostic accuracy remains a concern. Our objective was to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of core needle, open, and fine needle biopsies.

Method: We reviewed 286 cases collected in a prospective database between 2004 and 2007. Of these, 229 had core needle, 32 open, and 25 fine needle biopsies. 230 had soft-tissue lesions, 56 had bone lesions. The results of these biopsies were compared to the final resection diagnosis for accuracy and, where inaccurate, any effects on management.

Results: Ninety-two percent of the core needle, 100% of the open and 72% of the fine needle biopsies had adequate tissue to make a diagnosis. Of the adequate specimens, the accuracy of core/open/fine needle biopsy was 96%, 97% and 94% for determining malignant versus benign; of the correctly identified malignant lesions 97%, 100% and 80% were accurate for histological grade; and 79%, 84%, 59% for histological subtype.

Conclusion: Core needle biopsy yields diagnostic results comparable to open biopsy for determining malignancy and grade in bone and soft-tissue tumours. Fine needle biopsy has a high inadequate sampling rate and should not be used for diagnosing bone and soft-tissue tumours. Given the reduced cost and morbidity associated with core needle biopsies we believe they should be used routinely for diagnosis where possible, and open biopsy reserved for situations where an inadequate specimen is obtained or core biopsy is not feasible.