[Conventional arthrography in comparison with magnetic resonance tomography and arthroscopy in internal knee joint injuries: are there specific indications?].
Twenty-one patients with suspected internal knee joint lesions were examined prospectively. In all patients an MRI was carried out first and was followed within two weeks by an arthrography and an arthroscopy. Lesions of the menisci, cruciate ligaments, hyaline cartilage, and synovial tissues were evaluated. Arthroscopy findings were defined as the "gold standard". MRI achieved an accuracy of 96.4%, a sensitivity of 93.6%, and a specificity of 92.5%, whereas arthrography achieved an accuracy of 67.8%, a sensitivity of 66.6%, and a specificity of 71.4%. These statistical data as well as the single findings revealed no special indications for arthrography in suspected knee joint lesions.
König
H
H
Radiologische Klinik Abteilung für Röntgendiagnostik und Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Steglitz, FU Berlin.
Andresen
R
R
Radmer
S
S
Schmidt
M
M
Wolf
K J
KJ
D000208:Acute Disease; D000328:Adult; D001175:Arthrography; D001182:Arthroscopy; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007718:Knee Injuries / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
Die konventionelle Arthrographie im Vergleich zu Magnetresonanztomographie und Arthroskopie bei Kniegelenkbinnenläsionen: Verbleiben Indikationen?