PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 3, 2026Mağallaẗ kulliyyaẗ ğāmiʿaẗ al-Ḥillaẗ ğāmiʿaẗ li-l-ʿulūm al-ṭibiyyaẗ.0 citationsOpen Access

Knee Arthroscopy versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of ACL Injury – A Comparative Study

View Full Paper
HMHussein Habeeb MhaweshSalahaddin University-ErbilAHAyoub Yosif HamdanSalahaddin University-ErbilAHAhmed Khalaf HamadUniversity of Tikrit

Key Points

  • MRI achieved a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 88% in diagnosing ACL injuries, marking it as effective.
  • Of the 40 patients, MRI identified 22 positive and 3 negative cases accurately, but had 1 false positive and 14 false negatives.
  • Arthroscopy served as the reference standard, confirming the results from MRI examinations conducted in 2024–2025.
  • High sensitivity and accuracy promote MRI as a valuable tool, though comparisons to arthroscopy highlight the need for careful interpretation.

Abstract

Background: Accurate diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries is critical for selecting appropriate treatment strategies and preventing long-term knee dysfunction. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widely used as a non-invasive diagnostic tool, while arthroscopy remains the gold standard. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MRI against arthroscopic findings in ACL injuries and to assess its current performance in clinical settings for the years 2024–2025. Methods: A total of 40 patients (31 males, 77%; 9 females, 23%) aged 20–50 years (median age 35 years) who presented with suspected ACL injury were enrolled. All patients underwent MRI examination followed by arthroscopic evaluation, which served as the reference standard. Diagnostic indices, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy, were calculated. Results: MRI correctly identified 22 actual positive cases and three true negative cases, with one false positive and 14 false negative results when compared with arthroscopy. The calculated diagnostic performance of MRI was as follows: sensitivity 93%, specificity 88%, PPV 82%, NPV 95%, and overall accuracy 90%. Conclusion: MRI demonstrates high sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosing ACL injuries, making it a valuable non-invasive diagnostic tool. However, certain discrepancies compared with arthroscopy suggest that MRI should be interpreted with caution in equivocal cases.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mhawesh et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a76732badf0bb9e87dffa7https://doi.org/10.62445/2958-4515.1087
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper