Abstract
With the increasing availability of magnetic resonance imaging, there is potentially less emphasis being placed on making a definitive clinical diagnosis. Changes in the undergraduate curriculum have also reduced the emphasis on orthopaedic clinical evaluation. This aim of this study was to evaluate the predictability of clinical examination alone in comparison with arthroscopic findings in 50 consecutive patients presenting for arthroscopy to our service. Four trainees examined each patient; each examiner was blinded to the clinical diagnosis made by their colleagues. All patients were examined in the ward and subsequently underwent examination under anaesthesia and arthroscopy.
Of the tests for meniscal injuries joint line tenderness was the most sensitive (77%) and specific (68%). Apley’s and McMurray’s test while specific (92%, 98%) lacked sensitivity (9%, 30%). Overall the tests for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) disruption were more reliable than the tests for meniscal injuries. The anterior drawer and Lachmann tests had high specificity (90%, 75%) and sensitivity. The pivot shift test also had very high specificity (75%) and sensitivity (98%) for detecting ACL injuries. These data demonstrate that joint line tenderness is the most reliable sign of menis-cal injury. In the absence of joint line tenderness Apley & McMurray’s tests have little role in routine clinical examination. Clinical tests and signs of ACL deficiency are consistently reliable in diagnosing ACL rupture.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mr Carlos Wigderowitz, Senior Lecturer, University Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY.
