نوع مقاله : مقاله های پژوهشی
1 استاد، گروه ارتوپدی، دانشکدهی پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
2 دانشجوی پزشکی، کمیتهی تحقیقات دانشجویی، دانشکدهی پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
عنوان مقاله [English]
Background: Knee joint is the most common site of injury in trauma and detection of its serious diseases with high precision is essential. The aim of this study was to compare clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings with arthroscopic findings in patients with meniscus and ligament damage.Methods: This study included 100 patients with indication for knee arthroscopy. After obtaining informed consent from patients, and recording demographic data, patients underwent clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging of the knee. The result of each method was compared with arthroscopy result (known as the gold standard) and sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each method were calculated and compared.Findings: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of clinical examination in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were 100%, 75.0%, 94.1%, 100%, and 95.0%, respectively; the values were 93.75%, 100%, 100%, 80.0%, and 95.0%, respectively, for magnetic resonance imaging. In addition, for physical examination, in the diagnosis of meniscus damage, pre-mentioned values were 74.1%, 100%, 100%, 73.7%, and 85.0%, respectively, and 93.1 %, 88.1%, 91.5%, 90.2%, and 91%, respectively, for magnetic resonance imaging. By means of significance, magnetic resonance imaging had higher specificity and lower sensitivity than physical examination for anterior cruciate ligament rupture, and had lower specificity and higher sensitivity and overall accuracy for meniscus damage.Conclusion: Clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging have close accuracy in diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament rupture and meniscus damage.