Originally Posted by Raul_SJ
................. am wondering if my tear is a good candidate for
MR imaging has emerged as an important modality in the non-invasive evaluation of osseous and soft-tissue structures in the post-traumatic knee.
However, it is sometimes impossible to determine with confidence if a focus of high signal intensity in the meniscus is confined to the substance of the meniscus or if it extends to involve the joint surface.
This is a critical differentiation because the latter represents meniscal tears that can be found and treated arthroscopically, whereas the former represents degeneration, intrasubstance tears or perhaps normal variants that are not amenable to arthroscopic intervention
If "capsular surface" = "joint surface" it appears that my tear is amenable to surgical repair.
But on the other hand, the MRI says it's a "Grade II degeneration" and degenerative tears don't respond well to surgery...
I'll have to keep studying...
What is the capsular surface? (The joint has several surfaces.)
Does the "Grade II degeneration" refer to the articular cartilage?
Does the MRI report describe a clear tear? Are your symptoms consistent with a meniscus injury?
The MRI for my first 1999 knee injury did not clearly show the meniscus tear. It only showed a slight shadowing where the meniscus is thin and hard to image. The slight shadowing was 'consistent' with the Dr's diagnosis of a medial meniscus tear. There was no definitive MRI observation unlike my 2011 injury of the other knee.
In 1999, I asked the Dr the probability that my knee would heal without surgery. He guessed that without surgery I might have a 25% chance of healing and said it was OK for me to try and heal. I gave it 3-4 months to heal, no running, and it did not improve. I got the arthroscopic surgery in Jan 2000 and the knee recovered. However, your symptoms are not like those of my first meniscus injury. I was afraid to run feeling very insecure and uncomfortable about knee motion.