Shantanu Kumar, Singh Shailendra, Srivastava Shubham, Saroj Atul K
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, IND.
Cureus. 2021 Jun 17;13(6):e15727. doi: 10.7759/cureus.15727. eCollection 2021 Jun.
This study was conducted to compare the accuracy of MRI findings and clinical examination of ligamentous and meniscal injuries of the knee, taking arthroscopy as a standard diagnostic tool in knee injuries. Methods: All patients with knee injuries attending the outpatient department or emergency of our hospital underwent clinical examination. Out of them, 60 patients with knee injuries were subjected to clinical examination, MRI, and then arthroscopy. The findings of these diagnostic tools in respect to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), and meniscus injuries were validated, compared, and analyzed using various statistical tools. The accuracy, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and specificity were calculated and an agreement between various tests was established using kappa statistics.
The accuracy of clinical examination in our study was 88% for ACL tears, 85% for meniscal tears, and 100% for PCL tears. The kappa measure of agreement between arthroscopy and clinical finding and MRI for ACL was 0.610 and 0.698, respectively, which was statistically significant. MRI (98.1) was found to be a more sensitive test for detecting ACL injury than clinical examination (90.4%) resulting in higher diagnostic accuracy (98.3%), while diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination and MRI was found to be 100% for PCL injuries. Hence, MRI is an excellent screening tool for ligamentous and meniscal injuries of the knee joint. We can avoid diagnostic arthroscopy in patients with knee injuries having equivocal clinical and MRI examinations and can proceed for therapeutic arthroscopy to deal with such injuries. Conclusions: For the assessment of ligamentous and meniscal injuries, MRI is an accurate and noninvasive modality. It can be used as a first-line investigation but arthroscopy remains the gold standard.
本研究旨在比较膝关节韧带和半月板损伤的MRI检查结果与临床检查的准确性,以关节镜检查作为膝关节损伤的标准诊断工具。方法:所有在我院门诊或急诊科就诊的膝关节损伤患者均接受临床检查。其中,60例膝关节损伤患者接受了临床检查、MRI检查,随后进行了关节镜检查。使用各种统计工具对这些诊断工具在前交叉韧带(ACL)、后交叉韧带(PCL)和半月板损伤方面的检查结果进行验证、比较和分析。计算准确性、敏感性、阴性预测值(NPV)、阳性预测值(PPV)和特异性,并使用kappa统计量确定各种检查之间的一致性。
在我们的研究中,临床检查对ACL撕裂的准确性为88%,对半月板撕裂的准确性为85%,对PCL撕裂的准确性为100%。关节镜检查与ACL临床检查结果和MRI之间的kappa一致性测量值分别为0.610和0.698,具有统计学意义。发现MRI(98.1)在检测ACL损伤方面比临床检查(90.4%)更敏感,从而具有更高的诊断准确性(98.3%),而临床检查和MRI对PCL损伤的诊断准确性均为100%。因此,MRI是膝关节韧带和半月板损伤的优秀筛查工具。对于临床和MRI检查结果不明确的膝关节损伤患者,我们可以避免诊断性关节镜检查,而可以进行治疗性关节镜检查来处理此类损伤。结论:对于韧带和半月板损伤的评估,MRI是一种准确且无创的检查方法。它可以用作一线检查,但关节镜检查仍然是金标准。