Kostov Hristijan, Arsovski Oliver, Kostova Elena, Nikolov Vladimir
Clinic of Traumatology, Medical Faculty, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, R. Macedonia.
Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2014;35(1):209-18.
The aim of this study was to compare findings from clinical examinations, MRI scans and arthroscopy in ACL injury of the knee in order to assess the diagnostic significance of both examination findings. This study was conducted to manage the reliability of clinical diagnosis in ACL tear injuries. All patients attending our clinic with knee pain from 2009 to 2013 underwent systematic and thorough clinical assessment. Of 103 patients with knee problems arthroscopy ACL tears was diagnosed in 73. All these patients underwent therapeutic arthroscopic knee surgery. The clinical diagnosis was evaluated and confirmed during this procedure. The accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on these arthroscopic findings. The MRI accuracy of clinical diagnosis in our study was 82.5% for ACL tears. Accuracy for two of three clinical examination tests of clinical diagnosis in our study was 96% and 94% for ACL tears. According to our obtained correlation between clinical examinations, MRI scan and arthroscopy for ACL injuries, we concluded that carefully performed clinical examination can give equal or better diagnosis of ACL injuries in comparison with MRI scan. Our study revealed MRI scan high sensitivity and specificity and not so high accuracy for ACL injuries of the knee joint in comparison with arthroscopy. MRI is an appropriate screening tool for therapeutic arthroscopy, making diagnostic arthroscopy unnecessary in most patients. According to our findings we can conclude that a positive anterior drawer test and a positive Lachman clinical examination test is more accurate for predicting, i.e. diagnosis of ACL tear. On the ither hand, MRI scan findings showed less accuracy for predicting, i.e. diagnosis of ACL tear. According to many studies of clinical examination tests compared (correlated) with arthroscopy, the accuracy of predicting ACL tears depends on the level of the skilled orthopaedic or trauma surgeon's hands. Based on these findings, we feel that MRI, except in certain circumstances, is an expensive and unnecessary diagnostic test in patients with suspected meniscal and ACL pathology.
本研究的目的是比较膝关节前交叉韧带(ACL)损伤的临床检查、磁共振成像(MRI)扫描和关节镜检查的结果,以评估这两种检查结果的诊断意义。本研究旨在管理ACL撕裂伤临床诊断的可靠性。2009年至2013年期间,所有因膝关节疼痛前来我们诊所就诊的患者均接受了系统而全面的临床评估。在103例膝关节问题患者中,73例被诊断为关节镜下ACL撕裂。所有这些患者均接受了治疗性膝关节镜手术。在此过程中对临床诊断进行了评估和确认。根据这些关节镜检查结果计算准确性、敏感性和特异性。在我们的研究中,MRI对ACL撕裂临床诊断的准确性为82.5%。在我们的研究中,ACL撕裂临床诊断的三项临床检查测试中的两项准确性分别为96%和94%。根据我们获得的ACL损伤临床检查、MRI扫描和关节镜检查之间的相关性,我们得出结论,与MRI扫描相比,仔细进行的临床检查在诊断ACL损伤方面可以给出相同或更好的诊断结果。我们的研究表明,与关节镜检查相比,MRI扫描对膝关节ACL损伤具有较高的敏感性和特异性,但准确性不高。MRI是治疗性关节镜检查的合适筛查工具,在大多数患者中无需进行诊断性关节镜检查。根据我们的研究结果,我们可以得出结论,阳性前抽屉试验和阳性Lachman临床检查试验在预测即诊断ACL撕裂方面更准确。另一方面,MRI扫描结果在预测即诊断ACL撕裂方面显示出较低的准确性。根据许多将临床检查测试与关节镜检查进行比较(关联)的研究,预测ACL撕裂的准确性取决于熟练的骨科或创伤外科医生的水平。基于这些发现,我们认为,除了在某些情况下,MRI对疑似半月板和ACL病变的患者来说是一种昂贵且不必要的诊断测试。