British Medical Bulletin Advance Access originally published online on September 3, 2007
British Medical Bulletin 2007 84(1):5-23; doi:10.1093/bmb/ldm022
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: a systematic review
,
,,¶,,*
University of Keele, Keele University Medical School, Thornburrow Drive, Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST4 7QB, UK
University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST4 6QG, UK
¶ Newcastle-under-Lyme Primary Care NHS Trust, Civic Offices, Merrial Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme ST5 2AZ, UK
* Correspondence to: Nicola Maffulli, University of Keele, Keele University Medical School, Thornburrow Drive, Hartshill, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST4 7QB, UK. E-mail: n.maffulli{at}keele.ac.uk
Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is of great aid in the diagnosis of knee lesions. Most diagnostic studies comparing MRI and arthroscopy have shown good diagnostic performance in detecting lesions of the menisci and cruciate ligaments. Nevertheless, arthroscopy has remained the reference standard for the diagnosis of internal derangements of the knee, against which alternative diagnostic modalities should be compared.
Methods: We took arthroscopy to be the ‘gold standard’, and we undertook a systematic review of MRI and arthroscopy in the diagnosis of internal derangements of the knee. We used Coleman scoring methodology to identify scientifically sound articles in a reproducible format.
Results: MRI is highly accurate in diagnosing meniscal and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. It is the most appropriate screening tool before therapeutic arthroscopy. It is preferable to diagnostic arthroscopy in most patients because it avoids the surgical risks of arthroscopy. The results of MRI differ for medial and lateral meniscus and ACL, with only 85% accuracy.
Conclusions: Study design characteristics should also be taken into account whenever a study on MRI assessing its diagnostic performance is designed or reviewed.
Level of evidence: II, systematic review of level II studies.
Keywords: MRI • arthroscopy • patient outcome • systematic review
Accepted for publication July 27, 2007.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. K. Markhardt, J. M. Gross, and J. Monu Schatzker Classification of Tibial Plateau Fractures: Use of CT and MR Imaging Improves Assessment1 RadioGraphics, March 1, 2009; 29(2): 585 - 597. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Karkhanis, A. Frost, and N. Maffulli Operative management of tennis elbow: a quantitative review Br. Med. Bull., December 1, 2008; 88(1): 171 - 188. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. Spindler and R. W. Wright Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear N. Engl. J. Med., November 13, 2008; 359(20): 2135 - 2142. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Hawker, J. Guan, A. Judge, and P. Dieppe Knee Arthroscopy in England and Ontario: Patterns of Use, Changes Over Time, and Relationship to Total Knee Replacement J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2008; 90(11): 2337 - 2345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|