PURPOSE: Despite high accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosing meniscal tears, MR findings do not always agree with surgical findings. We performed a blinded, retrospective study to analyze the nature and frequency of errors in the MR diagnosis of meniscal tears. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 100 consecutive patients who underwent MR and arthroscopy of the knee at our institution were reviewed. Twelve patients underwent prior meniscal surgery. Twenty-three patients had 27 discrepancies between MR and surgical findings. These were independently reviewed by two additional musculoskeletal radiologists in a double blinded fashion. Original incorrect diagnoses were categorized as either unavoidable, interpretation error or equivocal for meniscal tear. RESULTS: MR accuracy was 88% for the medial and 85% for the lateral meniscus. Of 27 incorrect MR diagnoses, 12 (44%) were unavoidable, 10 (37%) equivocal and 5 (19%) interpretation errors. Of the 67 medial meniscal tears, 12 (18%) were missed. Eight (67%) of these 12 were categorized as equivocal, including three postoperative menisci. Of 30 lateral tears, 12 (40%) were missed, 7 (58%) of which were categorized as unavoidable. Of these 12, 11 (92%) showed fraying of the inner edge, which was shaved at arthroscopy (n = 8) or had stable tear treated conservatively (n = 3). There were three false-positive diagnoses, all occuring in the lateral meniscus, two of which were unavoidable and one interpretation error. CONCLUSION: Of all missed lateral meniscal tears, most are unavoidable and related to confusion between what represents fraying and what represents a tear. Unavoidable false-positive diagnoses are infrequent and may be related to incomplete arthroscopic evaluation. Subtle or equivocal findings still make MR diagnosis difficult, even for experienced radiologists.
PURPOSE: Despite high accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosing meniscal tears, MR findings do not always agree with surgical findings. We performed a blinded, retrospective study to analyze the nature and frequency of errors in the MR diagnosis of meniscal tears. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 100 consecutive patients who underwent MR and arthroscopy of the knee at our institution were reviewed. Twelve patients underwent prior meniscal surgery. Twenty-three patients had 27 discrepancies between MR and surgical findings. These were independently reviewed by two additional musculoskeletal radiologists in a double blinded fashion. Original incorrect diagnoses were categorized as either unavoidable, interpretation error or equivocal for meniscal tear. RESULTS: MR accuracy was 88% for the medial and 85% for the lateral meniscus. Of 27 incorrect MR diagnoses, 12 (44%) were unavoidable, 10 (37%) equivocal and 5 (19%) interpretation errors. Of the 67 medial meniscal tears, 12 (18%) were missed. Eight (67%) of these 12 were categorized as equivocal, including three postoperative menisci. Of 30 lateral tears, 12 (40%) were missed, 7 (58%) of which were categorized as unavoidable. Of these 12, 11 (92%) showed fraying of the inner edge, which was shaved at arthroscopy (n = 8) or had stable tear treated conservatively (n = 3). There were three false-positive diagnoses, all occuring in the lateral meniscus, two of which were unavoidable and one interpretation error. CONCLUSION: Of all missed lateral meniscal tears, most are unavoidable and related to confusion between what represents fraying and what represents a tear. Unavoidable false-positive diagnoses are infrequent and may be related to incomplete arthroscopic evaluation. Subtle or equivocal findings still make MR diagnosis difficult, even for experienced radiologists.
Authors: P Y Savoye; J N Ravey; C Dubois; L Pittet Barbier; A Courvoisier; D Saragaglia; G Ferretti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: E Liodakis; S Hankemeier; M Jagodzinski; R Meller; C Krettek; J Brand Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Björn Peter Roßbach; Matthias Frank Pietschmann; Mehmet Fatih Gülecyüz; Thomas Richard Niethammer; Andreas Ficklscherer; Stefan Wild; Volkmar Jansson; Peter Ernst Müller Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 3.318