The role of outpatient needle arthroscopy in the diagnosis and management of musculoskeletal complaints: A systematic review of the Arthrex NanoScope

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim was to review the literature regarding needle arthroscopy using the Arthrex NanoScope system and evaluate: (1) the diagnostic indications, utility, and efficacy compared to conventional methods, and (2) the therapeutic indications, safety, and reported outcomes. MethodsSearches of three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed) were conducted in November 2021 using MeSH terms: ‘needle arthroscopy’, ‘human’, ‘in office arthroscopy’, ‘needle arthroscope’, ‘nanoscopic’, ‘surgery’, ‘nanoscope’ and ‘percutaneous arthroscopy’. The included studies were catalogued, quality-assessed using Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS), and analysed using the Cochrane data collection templates for randomised control trials (RCT) and non-randomised control trials (non-RCT). The majority of studies were non-numerical and were examined using qualitative analysis. ResultsThe search yielded 314 studies, 22 of which were included for analysis. MINORS assessment was applicable to four studies. Mean MINORS was 10.7/16 with the most frequent limitations being lack of unbiased endpoint or sample size calculation. The level of evidence ranged from level IV–V. Diagnostic and therapeutic indications were described in relation to the: knee (n = 10); shoulder (n = 6); foot/ankle (n = 3); elbow (n = 2), and miscellaneous (n = 1). ConclusionsNeedle arthroscopy can augment the diagnostic process in patients presenting with musculoskeletal complaints, and may provide benefits in terms of diagnostic accuracy, cost efficiency, timeliness of investigation, and a visually impactful patient-centred consultation. Therapeutic interventions are reported by a small number of pioneer groups who report some benefits over conventional arthroscopy. The available literature remains small and of low quality, and more evidence is needed with regards to patient selection, efficacy, safety, and cost.Level of Evidence: Level V (based on the weakest study included in the Systematic Review).