header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 91-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 19 - 19
1 Mar 2009
Maffulli N Bridgman S Richards P Walley G Clement D MacKenzie G Al-tawarah Y Griffiths D
Full Access

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed–4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ2=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 88-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 253 - 253
1 May 2006
Bridgman S Richards P Walley G Clement D MacKenzie G Al-tawarah Y Maffulli N Griffiths D
Full Access

Statement of Purpose: We tested the null hypothesis of no significant difference in arthroscopy rates for patients on a waiting list for arthroscopy in patients in which surgeons had a knee magnetic resonance imaging scan report prior to surgery, compared to those who did not have a report.

Methods and Results: This is a single-centre randomised controlled trial. 252 eligible patients consented and randomised. The two groups were similar with respect to a range of baseline factors. Very few arthroscopies were not performed −4.8% in the intervention arm and 5.5% in the control arm (χ2=0.06, df=1, p> 0.05). A longitudinal analysis of the secondary outcomes showed that there were no significant differences between the intervention and the control arms of the study.

Conclusion: Magnetic resonance imaging, prior to knee arthroscopy, does not lead to a reduction in the number of arthroscopies undertaken in the intervention group nor improve patient outcome in a range of secondary measures.