Abstract
Knee arthroscopy is probably the most common procedure performed in orthopaedic practice. A number of patients who undergo this procedure do not have any abnormality detected. Is negative arthroscopy really such an unnecessary procedure?
We evaluated the outcome of patients in whom knee arthroscopy proved to be normal. Hospital records of patients who had had knee arthroscopy were retrospectively studied and all patients with a normal knee arthroscopy were selected.
Fifty-three patients (55 knees) with a normal arthroscopy were included into the study. Patients were then interviewed either by telephone or questionnaire to ascertain current symptoms, job changes and patient perception of the procedure.
The mean follow up was 43 months. Fifty percent of the patients had had a history of injury, and the preoperative diagnosis was thought to be a meniscal lesion or ACL rupture in 38% of patients. Sixty eight percent of the patients felt they were better and there were no complications. The incidence of all symptoms was significantly reduced after arthroscopy.
A significant number of patients felt that they were better after the knee arthroscopy. The reason for this is no entirely clear. It may well be due to a placebo effect, the fact that patients now know that there is no abnormality and learn to live with the symptoms or there may be an additional benefit of the procedure itself.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Richard Buxton. Correspondence should be addressed to him at Bankton Cottage, 21 Bankton Park, Kingskettle, Cupar, Fife KY15 7PY, United Kingdom
