4.0 Article

A comparison between MRI, sonography and Functional Independence Score in Haemophilia methods in diagnosis, evaluation and classification of arthropathy in severe haemophilia A and B

Journal

BLOOD COAGULATION & FIBRINOLYSIS
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 131-135

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000000376

Keywords

activities; function; haemophilia; haemophilic arthropathy; musculoskeletal

Categories

Funding

  1. Shiraz University of Medical Sciences
  2. [869]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evaluation of joints in children with haemophilia is important in detecting abnormalities, staging their severity and following the effects of treatment. The aim of this study is to evaluate the correlation of FISH score (Functional Independence Score in Haemophilia) with the scores obtained by MRI and sonography for the diagnosis, evaluation and classification of arthropathy in severe haemophilia. In this cross-sectional study on 25 severe haemophilia patients, FISH, MRI and sonography procedures were performed in the elbow or knee joint. All patients' information, including age, type of haemophilia, affected joint, scores of MRI, sonography and FISH, dose of factor consumed, weight and prophylaxis protocol were collected and analysed. Among the 25 patients (age range of 11-70 years), 22 patients were haemophilia A and three patients were haemophilia B. Affected joints were right knee in 12 patients, left knee in nine and right elbow in four. There was only a statistically significant negative correlation between FISH and MRI Additive (A) scale (r(s)=-0.537, P=0.006). Considering cartilage loss domain (related MRI A scale: 13-20), 20 patients (80%) were classified in this group with FISH scores ranged from 17 to 22. On the basis of our results, FISH scores in severe haemophilia patients were negatively correlated with MRI A scale. Also, it seems that a FISH score less than 22 could be considered as loss of cartilage; however, due to the small number of our patients, it needs further assessment in different populations. Copyright (C) 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available