logo

Review Timeline | CrossMark Policy | ClinMed Features
   

Need a supporting hand in manuscript formatting? Write to our team.
Assistance in presubmission | editorialoffice@clinmedjournals.org

     
Journal of
Musculoskeletal Disorders and Treatment
ISSN: 2572-3243
RESEARCH ARTICLE | VOLUME 3, ISSUE 2 | OPEN ACCESS DOI: 10.23937/2572-3243.1510032

Is Bony Evidence of Enthesial Reaction Sufficient for Differential Diagnosis?

Bruce Rothschild

Northeast Ohio Medical University, USA

*Corresponding authors: Bruce Rothschild, M.D., Northeast Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, Ohio 44272; Carnegie Museum, 4400 Forbes Ave, Pittsburgh, PA-15213, USA, Fax: 724-427-2707, E-mail: spondylair@gmail.com

Received: July 22, 2016 | Accepted: May 08, 2017 | Published: May 10, 2017

Citation: Rothschild B (2017) Is Bony Evidence of Enthesial Reaction Sufficient for Differential Diagnosis? J Musculoskelet Disord Treat 3:032. doi.org/10.23937/2572-3243.1510032

Copyright: © 2017 Rothschild B. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract


Background

Enthesial reaction, as a stress or disease marker, has been a generalized perspective, largely untested as to its veracity. Perhaps valid with soft tissue visualization by computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, examination of standard radiographs reveals minimal evidence of enthesial reaction. The current study seeks to assess the disease-specificity of enthesial reaction by examining the primary evidence that of disease-related variation in its presence in defleshed skeletons.

Methods

Defleshed skeletons were evaluated macroscopically (in a manner blinded according to disease diagnosis) to assess presence of enthesial reaction. The skeletal sample included individuals diagnosed on the basis of clinical and previously validated non-enthesial reaction-based criteria as having spondyloarthropathy, calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. These diseases are classically considered predisposed to enthesial reaction. They were contrasted with those which are not (rheumatoid arthritis and healthy individuals). The latter cohort was developed by excluding individuals with diseases that could have an enthesial component (e.g., renal disease, hypertrophic osteoarthropathy). Sixty-six macroscopically examined sites were assessed (ANOVA) individually and also according to established scoring systems.

Results

Prevalence of enthesial reaction at individual sites was indistinguishable, with notable exception of posterior iliac spine, ischial tuberosity and lateral elbow largely spared in healthy individuals, greater trochanter was more commonly affected in spondyloarthropathy and CPPD and distal lateral femoral sparing occurred in rheumatoid arthritis. Limited scoring systems performed poorly.

Conclusions

Macroscopic bone manifestation of enthesitis has insufficient prevalence variation among diseases to be useful in distinguish among them. Absence of macroscopic evidence of significant enthesial reaction explains the inadequacy of plain radiographs in its recognition. Enthesitis appears to be predominantly a soft tissue phenomenon, analogous to dactylitis.

Keywords


Enthesitis, Rheumatoid arthritis, Spondyloarthropathy, Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis, Anatomical study, Standard radiography

Introduction


Alterations ofen theses (sites of ligament, tendon or capsule insertion) [1-3] have been suggested as markers of activity and pathology. Defined as bone reaction at sites of the insertions of tendons, ligaments and joint capsules [4,5], enthesial reaction has been variously considered to have a mechanical or inflammatory derivation [6-9]. Enthesitis was formerly been referred to as one of the musculoskeletal stress markers in assessment of skeletons from archeological sites because it was perceived as a marker of activity [10-13], although such attribution is controversial [14,15].

Clinical [16,17], ultrasound [17], MRI [18,19] and PET/CT [20] exposure of enthesial alterations have been shown to have documented value in distinguishing among several varieties of arthritis. The sensitivity of x-ray examination seems to be less established [16]. Is this related to the positioning of patients for x-rays, in which the orientation may not be sufficiently tangential to an enthesis to allow reaction to be observed? Is the reaction below the resolution (smaller than that) of x-ray techniques or is enthesitis predominantly a soft tissue phenomenon, with bone being altered less often?

Analysis of enthesial reactions has been subjected to a variety of approaches. Mariotti, et al. divided enthesial reaction into "osteophytic" and "osteolytic" [21]. Unfortunately, the former term causes confusion with osteophytes. A better term might be exostotic, although exostosis also has a different implication [4]. Djukic, et al. also suggested use of histologic scores, but this is a very destructive analysis that is not appropriate for reference collections such as the Hamman-Todd [22].

One way of assessing this question is to examine the bones themselves. Therefore, macroscopic examination of defleshed bones was therefore pursued in defined populations with disorders that are generally considered to be enthesial in nature. These include diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) [4,23], spondyloarthropathy [9,24-26] and calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease [4,9,27-29]. The findings in these conditions were contrasted with that of rheumatoid arthritis [20,30,31] and populations of healthy individuals [6,9,23]. Identifying the latter group required excluding individuals with disorders that also have enthesial components. The latter include hypertrophic osteoarthropathy, renal disease and less well studied syphilis.

Surveys for enthesitis (Table 1) have incorporated as many as 66 enthesis [32] or as few as four [33]. The Mander score incorporates 66 sites, including vertebral spinous processes, counting the number of enthesis affected [34]; the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) score, 18 sites [35,36]; the University of California, San Francisco Index, 17 sites [37]; the Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score (MASES), 13 sites [32]; the Berlin index, 12 sites [38]; the Leeds score, 6 sites [39]; and the IMPACT score, 4 sites [33].

Materials and Methods


The enthesis listed in Table 1 were examined macroscopically for exophytic reaction. The term macroscopic examination entails physically examining all surfaces of the bones both by direct vision and by palpation for surface irregularities. The surface application of new bone at enthuses was interpreted as enthesial reaction. The skeletons to be examined were selected on the basis of established disease diagnoses [28,31,40] in the Hamann-Todd collection (Cleveland Museum of Natural History). The latter consists of 2906 human skeletons compiled in the early part of the 20th century (1912-1938) after autopsy and defleshing. The healthy individual sample was selected on the basis of order of incorporation (date of death) into the collection, contemporaneous to that of the examined individuals with documented rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathy, calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, diffuse idiopathic and skeletal hyperostosis. Given the association of enthesial reaction with renal bone disease (hyperparathyroidism and osteomalacia) [41,42], hypertrophic osteoarthropathy [43], and syphilis [4,14,44], individuals with those diagnoses were excluded from the comparative sample designated as healthy. The health of the individuals studied was not distinguishable from that of contemporary living populations [31,45].

The study samples of individuals with specific diseases of interest were derived from diagnostic cohorts previously validated as to diagnosis and general population representativeness (see Rothschild, 1997, 2005, 2007, 2015; Rothschild and Rothschild, 1996, 1998; Rothschild and Woods, 1990, 1991, 1992a,b; Rothschild, et al., 1990, 1992, 2002 in Rothschild and Martin, 2006). The diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was based on the presence of polyarticular, marginally distributed erosions, axial skeleton (atlanto-axial junction excepted) sparing and absent joint fusion [14,31]. A diagnosis of spondyloarthropathy was based on the presence of axial joint disease, joint fusion, or peripheral, predominantly subchondral erosions and reactive new bone formation [14,40]. The diagnosis of calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease diagnosis was based on recognition of a calcified sheet (reflecting onto the articular surface), radiocarpal articular surface indentation, or calcific concretions at the joint surface margins [14,28]. Diagnosis of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) was based on ligamentous bridging of at least four contiguous thoracic vertebra in the absence of zygapophyseal joint erosions or fusion [4,46]. Diagnoses of renal disease and syphilis were based on the medical records component of the Hamman-Todd Collection [42,44].Diagnosis of hypertrophic osteoarthritis was based on classic distal diaphyseal periosteal reaction in individuals with disorders known to cause the disease: pneumonia, tuberculosis, intrathoracic pathology, endocarditis, cirrhosis [4,43].

The necessary sample size for this study, calculated to assure a Beta error of less than 10% revealing the requirement for at least 11 patients in each group. Therefore, skeletons from twenty randomly selected synchronic individuals from each group were examined. The releence of enthesial reaction at individual sites and the indexes in Table 1 was subjected to Chi square, t-test and ANOVA statistics to assess differential occurrence among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathy, calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease, DISH and otherwise healthy individuals without evidence of those diseases or of hypertrophic osteoarthropathy, renal disease or syphilis.

Table 1: Survey summaries utilized in comparison of enthesitis prevalence across population samples [29-32]. View Table 1

Results


While males predominated in the current study, age and gender distribution were indistinguishable among the study groups. Enthesial reaction was predominantly localized to the Achilles and plantar tendon insertions into the calcanei, greater femoral trochanter and to the medial and lateral surfaces of the elbow (Table 2). The next most commonly involved sites were the medial and lateral knee regions, ischial tuberosity, posterior superior iliac spine, greater humeral tuberosity and lumbar spinous processes. Prevalence at individual enthesial sites was virtually indistinguishable, with statistical significance noted only with the following subgroups. The posterior iliac spine, ischial tuberosity and lateral elbow insertion sites were less commonly involved in the healthy group (Chi square 11.06, 11.09, and 6.86 respectively, p < 0.01). Medial elbow insertion enthesitis was less common (Chi square 7.08, p < 0.01) in individuals without inflammatory arthritis (DISH and healthy groups). The greater trochanter was more commonly affected in the spondyloarthropathy and CPPD groups than in healthy individuals (Chi square 4.94, p < 0.05 and 7.04, p < 0.004, respectively). Plantar insertion involvement was more common in CPPD than in DISH and healthy individuals (Chi square 4.53, p < 0.04), medial elbow, in healthy individuals (Chi square 3.96, p < 0.05), and lateral knee, and was rare in those with rheumatoid arthritis RA (Chi square 6.76, p < 0.01). Evaluation of a further 21 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis confirmed its infrequency.

Table 2: Prevalence of entheseal reaction as a function of location and health status. View Table 2

The only distribution difference of enthesial reaction prevalence between spondyloarthropathy and rheumatoid arthritis was at the spinous process of the third lumbar vertebra and was less prevalent in the latter (Fisher exact test p = 0.0092). However, Tukey test correction for multiple comparisons erases the statistical significance, except for sparing of the third lumbar vertebra in rheumatoid arthritis.

The number of involved sites was obviously dependent on the scoring system. However, only the most inclusive scoring system (Mander) demonstrated statistical differences among the groups, and that was only when the rheumatoid and healthy groups were secondarily combined (Table 3).

Table 3: Efficacy of the survey approach to distinguishing entheseal reaction disease specificity. View Table 3

Discussion


Macroscopic examination of skeletons provides insights into the dichotomy between the clinical and radiological recognition of enthesitis. If there is no evidence of enthesial reaction on macroscopic examination of potentially afflicted sites, one would not that anticipate x-rays would reveal pathology at those sites. The prevalence of enthesial reaction noted on macroscopic examination of skeletons in the Hamann-Todd collection is indistinguishable from that reported in recent healthy individuals [6,9,23], further documenting its representativeness.

The distribution of macroscopic evidence of enthesial reaction was similar to that noted on clinical examination [47], although with lower prevalence than observed clinically [24,26]. Secundini, et al. noted that only one-third of clinically identified Achilles or plantar insertion tenderness had radiologic evidence of enthesitis [16]. Gladman, et al. reported the average number of enthesial sites in ankylosing spondylitis as four (range 1-21) and in axial psoriatic arthritis (a form of spondyloarthropthy), as 1.8 (range 1-11), confirming the low sensitivity of the plain radiographic approach for enthesitis-based recognition of disease [48]. One concludes that limited enthesitis indexes are of little applicability to radiologic and macroscopic evaluation, and it is unclear if more extensive surveys would be productive.

Conclusion


The prevalence of macroscopic skeletal involvement seems significantly less than would be anticipated for some disorders (e.g., DISH), but is similar to that found radiologically. Perhaps enthesitis is similar to dactylitis in that the clinical findings are not matched by what is seen on x-ray [16]. MRI similarly reveals significantly less evidence of enthesitis than clinical examination, finding less than half the sites identified by the latter [47,49]. Intriguingly, enthesial sites were previously noted not to overlap when MRI and clinical localization were compared [50]. The differential diagnostic value of enthesitis thus may be more dependent on soft tissue findings than on actual osseous alterations. An additional consideration is the possibility that there may have once been enthesial reaction at other sites some time during the individual's life but that it had diminished prior to death. D'Agostino and Oliveri [51] suggested that enthesial reaction diminishes over a period of several years.

Conflict of Interest


The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval


"All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards".

This article does not contain current patient data and the Hamann-Todd skeletal collection and its study were approved by Case Western Reserve University.

References


  1. Benjamin M, Rufai A, Ralphs JR (2000) The mechanism of formation of bony spurs (enthesophytes) in the Achilles tendon. Arthritis Rheum 43: 576-583.

  2. Claudepierre P, Voisin MC (2005) The entheses: Histology, pathology, and pathophysiology. Joint Bone Spine 72: 32-37.

  3. Shahar D, Sayers MG (2016) A morphological adaptation? The prevalence of enlarged external occipital protuberance in young adults. J Anat 229: 286-291.

  4. Resnick D (2002) Diagnosis of Bone and Joint Disorders. Philadelphia, Saunders.

  5. Rothschild BM, Wilhite DR, McLeod DS, Ting H (2015) Evidence from surface microscopy for recognition of fleshy and tendinous muscle insertion in extant vertebrate femora: Implications for muscle reconstruction in fossils. Historical Biology 28: 1-7.

  6. Atkin SL, El-Ghobarey A, Kamel M, Owen JP, Dick WC (1990) Clinical and laboratory studies in patients with leprosy and enthesitis. Ann Rheum Dis 49: 715-717.

  7. McGonagle D, Stockwin L, Isaacs J, Emery P (2001) An enthesitis based model for the pathogenesis of spondyloarthropathy: Additive effects of microbial adjuvant and biomechanical factors at disease sites. The Journal of Rheumatology 28: 2155-2159.

  8. McGonagle D, Lories RJ, Tan AL, Benjamin M (2007) The concept of a "synovio-entheseal complex" and its implication for understanding joint inflammation and damage in psoriatic arthritis and beyond. Arthritis Rheum 56: 2482-2491.

  9. Shaibani A, Workman R, Rothschild BM (1993) The significance of enthesopathy as a skeletal phenomenon. Clin Exp Rheumatol 11: 399-403.

  10. Henderson CY (2013) Technical note: Quantifying size and shape of entheses. Anthropol Sci 12: 63-73.

  11. Ninimäki S (2011) What do muscle marker ruggedness scores actually tell us? International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 21: 292-299.

  12. Noldner LK, Edgar HJ (2013) Technical note: 3D representation and analysis of enthesis morphology. Am J Phys Anthropol 152: 417-424.

  13. Villotte S, Castex D, Couallier V, Dutour O, Knüsel CJ, et al. (2010) Enthesopathies as occupational stress markers: evidence from the upper limb. Am J Phys Anthropol 142: 224-234.

  14. Rothschild BM, Martin LD (2006) Skeletal Impact of Disease. In: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque, 1-226.

  15. Wilczak C (1998) Consideration of sexual dimorphism, age, and asymmetry in quantitative measurements of muscle insertion sites. International Journal of Osteoarchaeol 8: 311-325.

  16. Secundini R, Scheines EJ, Gusis SE, Riopedre AM, Citera G, et al. (1997) Clinico-radiological correlation of enthesitis in seronegative spondyloarthropathies (SNSA). Clin Rheumatol 16: 129-132.

  17. Weiss PF, Chauvin NA, Klink AJ, Localio R, Feudtner C, et al. (2014) Detection of enthesitis in children with enthesitis-related arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 66: 218-227.

  18. Athoff CE, Appel H, Rudwaleit M, Sieper J, Eshed I, et al. (2007) Whole-body MRI as a new screening tool for detecting axial and peripheral manifestations of spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 66: 983-985.

  19. Eshed I, Bollow M, McGonagle DG, Ai Lyn Tan, Christian E Althoff, et al. (2007) MRI of enthesitis of the appendicular skeleton in spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 66: 1553-1559.

  20. Taniguchi Y, Arii K, Kumon Y, Fukumoto M, Ohnishi T, et al. (2010) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: A clinical tool for evaluation of enthesitis in patients with spondyloarthritides. Rheumatology 49: 348-354.

  21. Mariotti V, Facchini F, Belcastro MG (2004) Enthesopathies-proposal of a standardized scoring method and applications. Coll Antropol 1: 145-159.

  22. Djukic K, Milovanovic P, Hahn M, Busse B, Amling M, et al. (2015) Bone microarchitecture at muscle attachment sites: The relationship between macroscopic scores of enthuses and their cortical and trabecular microstructural design. Am J Phys Anthropol 157: 81-93.

  23. Morlock G, Dessauw P, Allie MP (1989) Extra-spinal enthesopathy in diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH).A controlled radiologic study. Arthritis Rheum 32: S20.

  24. Ball J (1971) Enthesopathy of rheumatoid and ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 30: 213-223.

  25. Benjamin M, Toumi H, Suzuki D, Redman S, Emery P, et al. (2007) Microdamage and altered vascularity at the enthesis-bone interphase provides an anatomic explanation for bone involvement in the HLA-B27-associated spondylarthritides and allied disorders. Arthritis Rheum 56: 224-233.

  26. Resnick D, Niwayama G (1983) Entheses and enthesopathy. Anatomical, pathological, and radiological correlation. Radiology 146: 1-9.

  27. Gerster JC, Band AC, Lagier R, Boussina I, Fallet GH (1977) Tendon calcification on chondrocalcinosis: A clinical, radiologic, histologic and crystallographic study. Arthritis Rheum 20: 717-722.

  28. Rothschild BM, Woods RJ, Rothschild C (1992) Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease: Description in defleshed skeletons. Clin Exp Rheumatol 10: 557-564.

  29. Singh R (2014) Bony projection from the pectineal line of hip bone. OA Case Reports 3: 64.

  30. Paolaggi JB, Strutz PH, Goutet MC (1984) Recherche systematique des enthesopathies au cours des rhumatismes chroniques resultant set signifcantion pathologique. Rapport avec la spondylite erosive et les autres lesions tendineusesousynoviales. Rev Rhum 51: 451-456.

  31. Rothschild BM, Woods RJ, Ortel W (1990) Rheumatoid arthritis "In the buff": Erosive arthritis in representative defleshed bones. Am J Phys Anthropol 82: 441-449.

  32. Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Spoorenberg A, van Tubergen A, Landewe R, van der Tempel H, et al. (2003) Assessment of enthesitis in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62: 127-132.

  33. Antoni C, Krueger GG, de Vlam K, Birbara C, Beutler A, et al. (2005) Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: Results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 1150-1157.

  34. Mander M, Simpson JM, McLellan A, Walker D, Goodacre JA, et al. (1987) Studies with an enthesis index as a method of clinical assessment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 46: 197-202.

  35. Gladman DD, Cook RJ, Schentag C, Feletar M, Inman RI, et al. (2004) The clinical assessment of patients with psoriatic arthritis: Results of a validation study of the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC). J Rheumatol 31: 1126-1131.

  36. Maksymowych WP, Mallon C, Morrow S (2009) Development and validation of the Spondyloarthritis Research Consrtum of Canada (SPARCC) Enthesitis Index. Ann Rheumatic Dis 68: 948-953.

  37. Gorman JD, Sack KE, Davis JC Jr (2002) Treatment of ankylosing spondylitis by inhibition of tumor necrosis factor α. N Engl J Med 346: 1349-1356.

  38. Braun J, Brandt J, Listing J, Zink A, Alten R, et al. (2002) Treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis with infliximab: A randomized controlled multicenter trial. Lancet 359: 1187-1193.

  39. Halliwell PS, Hicking P, Wright V (1998) Do the radiological changes of classic ankylosing spondylitis differ from the changes found in the spondylitis associated with inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, and reactive arthritis? Ann Rheum Dis 57: 135-140.

  40. Rothschild BM, Woods RJ (1991) Spondyloarthropathy: Erosive arthritis in representative defleshed bones. Am J Phys Anthropol 85: 125-134.

  41. Ramonda R, Sfriso P, Podswiadek M (2005) La polient esopatiadell'osteomalacia vitamin D rsistentedell'adulto. The enthesopathy of vitamin D-resistant osteomalacia in adults. Reumatismo 57: 52-56.

  42. Rothschild C, Rothschild B, Hershkovitz I (2002) Clues to recognition of kidney disease in archeologic record: characteristics and occurrence of leontiasis ossea. Rheumatismo 54: 133-143.

  43. Rothschild BM, Rothschild C (1998) Recognition of hypertrophic osteoarthropathy in skeletal remains. J Rheumatol 25: 2221-2227.

  44. Rothschild BM, Rothschild C (1995) Treponemal disease revisited: Skeletal discriminators for Yaws, Bejel, and venereal syphilis. Clin Infect Dis 20: 1402-1408.

  45. Mensforth RP, Latimer BM (1989) Hamann-Todd collection aging studies: Osteoporosis fracture-syndrome. Am J Phys Anthropol 80: 461-479.

  46. Rothschild BM (2016) Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis. Rheumatology.

  47. Althoff CE, Sieper J, Song IH, Weiß A, Diekhoff T, et al. (2016) Comparison of clinical versus whole-body magnetic resonance imaging of enthesitis in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis during 3 years of continuous etanercept treatment. J Rheumatol 43: 618-624.

  48. Gladman DD, Inman RD, Cook RJ, Maksymowych WP, Braun J, et al. (2007) International spondyloarthritisinterobserver reliability exercise - The INSPIRE study: II. Assessment of peripheral joints, enthesitis, and dactylitis. J Rheumatol 34: 1740-1745.

  49. Wendling D, Aubry S, Prati C (2016) Spondyloarthritis. Clinical versus imaging assessment: And the winner is? J Rheumatol 43: 468-470.

  50. Blachier M, Coutanceau B, Dougados M, Saraux A, Bastuji-Garin S, et al. (2013) Does the site of magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities match the site of recent-onset inflammatory back pain? The DESIR cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 72: 979-985.

  51. D'Agostino MA, Olivieri I (2006) Enthesitis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 20: 473-486.