Abstract
While neither arthroscopy nor magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is perfect, both can delineate pathologic changes in the knee with reasonable accuracy. The greatest advantage of MR imaging is that it is noninvasive and can be used to detect pathologic changes both inside and outside the synovial cavity. Arthroscopy has the distinct advantage of allowing definitive treatment at the time of diagnosis in most cases, but carries with it the potential risks associated with any invasive diagnostic technique. Both modalities are expensive, and their judicious use is therefore dictated, especially in this era of cost containment. The decision to use one or both studies is best made by the orthopaedic surgeon.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
