z-logo
Premium
Knees of ironman triathletes: Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of older (>35 years old) competitors
Author(s) -
Shellock Frank G.,
Hiller W. Douglas B.,
Ainge George R.,
Brown David W.,
Dierenfield Laura
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.10234
Subject(s) - medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , population , age groups , physical therapy , radiology , demography , environmental health , sociology
Abstract Purpose To use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the knees of older (>35 years old), competitive Ironman triathletes to determine the prevalence of abnormal findings. Materials and Methods The knees of 29 Ironman triathletes (20 men, 9 women; age range, 35–66 years old) were studied by MRI. The findings were analyzed collectively and categorized into group I ( N = 13), subjects without prior knee injuries and symptoms, and group II (N = 16), subjects with prior knee injuries and/or current symptoms. Results Ten percent of the knees had ligamentous abnormalities, but the prevalence was not statistically different comparing group I to group II. Fifty‐five percent had abnormal menisci. The overall prevalence of abnormal menisci was significantly higher in group II (69%) than in group I (38%, P < 0.05). Cartilage abnormalities were found in 21% of the triathletes with a higher prevalence in group II (31%) than in group I (8%, P < 0.05). Twenty‐one percent (6/29) of the knees had bone contusions, with a higher prevalence in group II (31%) than in group I (8%, P < 0.05). Conclusion In general, the spectrum of abnormal MRI findings of the knee was no greater than age‐related changes previously reported for other athletic populations and nonathletes. These results have important implications for the diagnostic use of MRI of the knee in this high‐endurance, athletic population. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2003;17:122–130. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here