Antonio Pozzi¹, Blake E Hildreth², Paivi J Rajala-Schultz².
¹University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, ²The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States

ACVS Abstract 2007

The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp) of arthroscopy, craniomedial arthrotomy (CrMed), and caudomedial arthrotomy (CdMed), for diagnosing medial meniscal pathology. Paired hind limbs from 30 dogs were harvested and randomly assigned to 5 groups: 1) no tear; 2) peripheral detachment; 3) incomplete bucket handle; 4) complete bucket handle; 5) double bucket handle. Within each pair, limbs were randomly assigned to a CCL-deficient or -intact group. Diagnoses of medial meniscal pathology were made by arthroscopy, CrMed, CdMed with visualization and with palpation with a probe using each method.

For comparison, the Sn and Sp and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with a¼0.05. Overall with visualization, arthroscopy had a Sn of 33% compared with 22% for both CrMed and CdMed. With palpation, arthroscopy had respectively a Sn/Sp of 80%/95%, which were greater than CrMed (37%/84%) and CdMed (42%/85%). In CCL-deficient stifles with palpation, arthroscopy had a Sn of 83%, which was greater than CrMed (47%) and CdMed (30%). In CCL-intact stifles with palpation, arthroscopy had a greater Sn (77%) than CrMed (27%), but similar to CdMed (53%).

Overall between methods, arthroscopy with palpation had the highest Sn and Sp, and is therefore recommended for the evaluation of medial meniscal pathology. When considering arthrotomy, CrMed and CdMed without palpation have low Sn, suggesting that medial meniscal pathology can be easily missed with these methods. However with palpation, both the Sn and Sp of CrMed and CdMed increase.