Abstract
Clinical investigations and tests need to be validated by studying their inter-observer and intra-observer errors, but there has been no documentation of such verification in diagnostic knee arthroscopy. We performed a prospective study to find out to what extent the findings in knee arthroscopy differ between two different surgeons.
Two senior specialist registrars (M.S. and A.J.) who took part in this study worked with the senior author (ACW) for a period of eight and seven months respectively. A total of 78 knee arthroscopies admitted from routine waiting list were studied. The specialist registrar first performed arthroscopy when the supervising consultant stayed away from the operating room. His findings were recorded on a proforma by an independent third person before the consultant returned to the operating room and repeated the EUA and arthroscopy without prior knowledge of the trainee findings. Findings from the consultant arthroscopy were then recorded separately on the same proforma.
The following findings were recorded:
-
Examination under anaesthesia
-
Meniscal pathology
-
ACL pathology
-
Articular surface pathology (more than 1 Outer-bridge grade)
The inter-observer variations in diagnostic knee arthroscopy were found to be high. Given the seniority and experience of the two trainee senior registrars involved in the study, and allowing for the Hawthorne effect, the results of the study cast doubt on this procedure being performed un-supervised. It also questions the validity of any therapeutic intervention based on the findings of un-supervised arthroscopies.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Simon Donell. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Department of Orthopaedics, Norfolk & Norwich Hospital, Level 4, Centre Block, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, United Kingdom.
