Editorial Commentary: The Desire to Take a Look: Surgeons and Patients Must Weigh the Benefits and Costs of In-Office Needle Arthroscopy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Abstract

There has always been a need for a more accurate diagnosis than the history and clinical examination allow. This was the very foundation for the evolution of the field of radiology and arthroscopic surgery. Before 1972, the imaging option (arthrography) was invasive and of limited use; therefore, arthroscopic surgery, as a much more accurate diagnostic tool, became widely accepted over time, even though it was more invasive. We should remember that this was not without a high degree of controversy and scorn. Today, we have technology that allows us to perform in-office diagnostic arthroscopy with a needle-size arthroscope under local anesthesia. We also have modern high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Both have merits, clear indications, and clear contraindications. Both have advantages and disadvantages and costs, and neither offers treatment.