Comparison of needle and conventional arthroscopy for visualisation of predefined anatomical structures of the knee joint: a feasibility study in human cadavers and patients.

backgroundIn terms of the optics used for Knee arthroscopy, a large number of different endoscopes are currently available. However, the use of the 30° optics in knee arthroscopy has been established as the standard procedure for many years. As early as the 1990s, needle arthroscopy was occasionally used as a diagnostic tool. In addition to the development of conventional optics technology in terms of camera and resolution, needle arthroscopes are now available with chip-on-tip image sensor technology. To date, no study has compared the performance of this kind of needle arthroscopy versus standard arthroscopy in the clinical setting in terms of the visibility of anatomical landmarks. In this monocentric prospective feasibility study, our aim was to evaluate predefined anatomical landmarks of the knee joint using needle arthroscopy (0° optics) and conventional knee arthroscopy (30° optics) and compare their performance during knee surgery.

methodsExaminations were performed on eight cadavers and seven patients who required elective knee arthroscopy. Two surgeons independently performed the examinations on these 15 knee joints, so that we were able to compare a total of 30 examinations. The focus was on the anatomical landmarks that could be visualized during a conventional diagnostic knee arthroscopy procedure. The quality of visibility was evaluated using a questionnaire.

resultsIn summary, the average visibility for all the anatomic landmarks was rated 4.98/ 5 for the arthroscopy using 30° optics. For needle arthroscopy, an average score of 4.89/ 5 was obtained. Comparatively, the needle arthroscope showed slightly limited visibility of the retropatellar gliding surface in eight (4.5/ 5 vs. 5/ 5), medial rim of the patella in four (4.85/ 5 vs. 5/ 5), and suprapatellar recess in four (4.83/ 5 vs. 5/ 5) cases. Needle arthroscopy was slightly better at visualizing the posterior horn of the medial meniscus in four knee joints (4.9/ 5 vs. 4.85/ 5).

conclusionNeedle arthroscopy is a promising technology with advantages in terms of minimally invasive access and good visibility of anatomical landmarks. However, it also highlights some limitations, particularly in cases with challenging anatomy or the need for a wide field of view.