Abstract
Introduction
Meniscal injuries are very common cause of knee pain and resultant attendance to the orthopaedics or sports medicine clinics. The current protocol stands at clinical examination at first contact and establishing a diagnosis with clinical indicators like joint line tenderness, McMurray's, Apley's and weight-bearing test for meniscal pathology followed by MRI scan to confirm the diagnosis. Either surgical or conservative management follows this. We aim to assess clinical examination alone provide sufficient evidence for further management of meniscal injury and does a role of MRI scan exist to corroborate the findings.
Methodology
We retrospectively studied 88 patients attending the sports medicine clinic for the duration 2004–2007 examined by senior clinical assessor. We investigated the co-relation of the clinical and MRI findings to validate if there exists an actual clinical justification to use MRI scan in every patient
We divided the data in further subsets of 57 patients in whom both clinical examination and MRI scan were performed and were validated by arthroscopy. The data obtained was analysed for parameters of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV] and negative predictive value [NPV]
Results
The comparison of clinical examination against MRI scans alone in 88 patients provided a accuracy of 81.81%, sensitivity of 95.77% and specificity of 23.52%.
The assessment revealed that clinical examination yielded accuracy of 89.47%, sensitivity of 96%, specificity of 42 %, PPV of 92%, NPV of 60% while MRI scan was 87.70% accurate, 86% sensitive, with specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 57.14%.
Conclusion
From the results yielded by the study we can conclude that in experienced hands the clinical examination is as robust as MRI scan for meniscal injury of knee and can negate the need for MRI scan to be performed in every painful knee with suspicious meniscal injury.
