Abstract
Purpose: This research project compared the accuracy of 3 methods of meniscal injury diagnosis that are commonly employed in a clinical orthopaedics: Clinical examination, MRI and Arthroscopic surgery.
Method: A retrospective review of charting was used to collect meniscal injury assessment data for 116 patients that had sustained an acute anterior cruciate ligament injury to one knee. Sixty-eight of the 116 patients had the presence of a meniscal lesion confirmed via surgery. Sensitivity and specificity of “hands on” clinical examination and MRI interpretation were determined using the results of arthroscopic surgery as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity of “hands on” clinical examination relative to MRI interpretation was also calculated. Finally, the findings of all three methods of meniscal evaluation were compared.
Results: Accuracy testing demonstrated that the sensitivity and specificity of clinical examinations (0.54 / 0.81) was comparable to levels observed for MRI (0.69 / 0.70), and when directly comparing the findings of clinical examination against MRI, that there was a high level of agreement when a meniscal lesion was not present (specificity: 0.91), but a much lower level of agreement when a meniscal lesion was suspected (sensitivity: 0.54). In general, when comparing the findings from clinical examination, MRI, and arthroscopic surgery, complete agreement among all 3 methods of evaluation occurred in only 51% of the patients.
Conclusion: Our results serve to highlight the inaccuracies associated with meniscal injury assessment when evaluating an acutely traumatized knee joint, and suggest that the incidence of secondary joint trauma following ligament injury may be under predicted.
Correspondence should be addressed to: COA, 4150 Ste. Catherine St. West Suite 360, Westmount, QC H3Z 2Y5, Canada. Email: meetings@canorth.org
