MRI Assessment of Painful Knee Joint in Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai, Tamil Nadu: A Cross- Sectional Study

Sathish, A.; Jayanthan, S. Shanmuga; Priya, K

doi:10.21276/ijcmsr.2019.4.3.55

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to its complexity, MRI is commonly used and recommended by doctors for evaluating knee injuries. 3 Knee injuries are commonly diagnosed by MRI. 12 MRI scans have the benefit of not necessitating intravenous contrast dyes or needle sticks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MRI allows for a more in-depth understanding of the knee than is achievable with more traditional testing methods. 3 Compared to computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides a more comprehensive evaluation of the knee's soft tissues and bones. 9 Arthroscopy is another common method since it allows for in-depth examination of the knee joint and, consequently, more accurate diagnosis and treatment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of MRI versus Arthroscopy in Assessment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries of The Knee Keeping Arthroscopy as Gold Standard

Niazi¹,

Niazi

Zainab³

et al. 2023

Ann Pak Inst Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the correlation between Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) findings and Arthroscopy in diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, using Arthroscopy as the gold standard. Methodology: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi, from February to August 2019. Clinical evidence of ACL injury was present in 127 individuals. They had an MRI as well as an arthroscopy. The diagnostic efficacy of MRI for ACL tears was evaluated, and its sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were all calculated. Comparisons between arthroscopic and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings yielded three classifications: True Positive (MRI verified by Arthroscopy), True Negative (both MRI and Arthroscopy negative for ACL injury), and False Positive/False Negative (differences between MRI and Arthroscopy). The arthroscopic inspection and MRI findings were entered into SPSS 23 software for tabulation and analysis. When necessary, both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Results: The study of statistics Arthroscopy was performed on 127 patients, either for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. A correlation was found when all the data was analyzed and tabulated. The majority of the patients were males (85.8%) in the second and third decades of life. The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, and accuracy of MRI in diagnosing ACL injuries were 89.89%, 64.28%, 64.28%, 89.89%, and 84.25%, respectively. Conclusion: MRI is an accurate and non-invasive modality for assessing ACL tears, showing good accuracy and high sensitivity. However, Arthroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosing ACL injuries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%