Original Research

Use of a Small-Bore Needle Arthroscope to Diagnose Intra-Articular Knee Pathology: Comparison With Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Publish date: February 6, 2018

Carl A. Deirmengian, MD

Joshua S. Dines, MD

Joseph V. Vernace, MD

Michael S. Schwartz, MD, MBA

R. Alexander Creighton, MD

James N. Gladstone, MD

TAKE-HOME POINTS

Small-bore needle arthroscopy is an effective way to diagnose intra-articular knee pathology.
Small-bore needle arthroscopy is safe and easy to use with no complications reported in this series.
Small-bore needle arthroscopy is a useful diagnostic tool in office settings.
In this series, small-bore needle arthroscopy was more accurate than MRI to diagnose knee meniscal tears.
In-office diagnostic arthroscopy can be used for other joints such as shoulder, elbow, and ankle.

References

1. Baeten D, Van den Bosch F, Elewaut D, Stuer A, Veys EM, De Keyser F. Needle arthroscopy of the knee with synovial biopsy sampling: technical experience in 150 patients. Clin Rheumatol. 1999;18(6):434-441.

2. Halbrecht J, Jackson D. Office arthroscopy: a diagnostic alternative. Arthroscopy. 1992;8(3):320-326.

3. Batcheleor R, Henshaw K, Astin P, Emery P, Reece R, Leeds DM. Rheumatological needle arthroscopy: a 5-year follow up of safety and efficacy. Arthritis Rheum Ann Sci Meet Abstr. 2001;(9 suppl).

4. Barronian AD, Zoltan JD, Bucon KA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: correlation with arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 1989;5(3):187-191.

5. Crues JV 3rd, Ryu R, Morgan FW. Meniscal pathology. The expanding role of magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(252):80-87.

6. Raunest J, Oberle K, Leohnert J, Hoetzinger H. The clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of meniscal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(1):11-16.

7. Spiers AS, Meagher T, Ostlere SJ, Wilson DJ, Dodd CA. Can MRI of the knee affect arthroscopic practice? A prospective study of 58 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(1):49-52.

8. O’Shea KJ, Murphy KP, Heekin RD, Herzwurm PJ. The diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, and radiographs in the evaluation of traumatic knee disorders. Am J Sports Med. 1996;24(2):164-167.

9. Ben-Galim P, Steinberg EL, Amir H, Ash N, Dekel S, Arbel R. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee and unjustified surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;(447):100-104.

10. Gramas DA, Antounian FS, Peterfy CG, Genant HK, Lane NE. Assessment of needle arthroscopy, standard arthroscopy, physical examination, and magnetic resonance imaging in knee pain: a pilot study. J Clin Rheumatol. 1995;1(1):26-34.

11. Voigt JD, Mosier M, Huber B. In-office diagnostic arthroscopy for knee and shoulder intra-articular injuries: its potential impact on cost savings in the United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:203.

12. Xerogeanes JW, Safran MR, Huber B, Mandelbaum BR, Robertson W, Gambardella RA. A prospective multi-center clinical trial to compare efficiency, accuracy and safety of the VisionScope imaging system compared to MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(2 suppl):1.

ABSTRACT

The use of arthroscopy for purely diagnostic purposes has been largely supplanted by noninvasive technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The mi-eye^+TM (Trice Medical) technology is a small-bore needle unit for in-office arthroscopy. We conducted a pilot study comparing the mi-eye^+TM unit with MRI, using surgical arthroscopy as a gold-standard reference. We hypothesized that the mi-eye^+TM needle arthroscope, which can be used in an office setting, would be equivalent to MRI for the diagnosis of intra-articular pathology of the knee.

This prospective, multicenter, observational study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. There were 106 patients (53 males, 53 females) in the study. MRIs were interpreted by musculoskeletally trained radiologists. The study was conducted in the operating room using the mi-eye^+TM device. The mi-eye^{+ TM} device findings were compared with the MRI findings within individual pathologies, and a “per-patient” analysis was performed to compare the arthroscopic findings with those of the mi-eye^+TM and the MRI. Additionally, we identified all mi-eye^+TM findings and MRI findings that exactly matched the surgical arthroscopy findings.

The mi-eye^+TM demonstrated complete accuracy of all pathologies for 97 (91.5%) of the 106 patients included in the study, whereas MRI demonstrated complete accuracy for 65 patients (61.3%) (P < .0001). All discrepancies between mi-eye^+TM and arthroscopy were false-negative mi-eye^+TM results, as the mi-eye^+TM did not reveal some aspect of the knee’s pathology for 9 patients. The mi-eye^+TM was more sensitive than MRI in identifying meniscal tears (92.6% vs 77.8%; P = .0035) and more specific in diagnosing these tears (100% vs 41.7%; P < .0001).

The mi-eye^+TM device proved to be more sensitive and specific than MRI for intra-articular findings at time of knee arthroscopy. Certainly there are contraindications to using the mi-eye^+TM, and our results do not obviate the need for MRI, but our study did demonstrate that the mi-eye^+TM needle arthroscope can safely provide excellent visualization of intra-articular knee pathology.

Continue to: Surgical arthroscopy is the gold standard...

Knotless Tape Suture Fixation of Quadriceps Tendon Rupture: A Novel Technique

Use of a Small-Bore Needle Arthroscope to Diagnose Intra-Articular Knee Pathology: Comparison With Magnetic Resonance Imaging

TAKE-HOME POINTS

References

ABSTRACT

Pages

Next Article: