How valid is the arthroscopic diagnosis of cartilage lesions? Results of an opinion survey among highly experienced arthroscopic surgeons

In general, arthroscopy is considered the gold standard for the evaluation of cartilage lesions. In this multicenter survey, we ascertained the general opinion of surgeons regarding arthroscopic cartilage diagnoses. A total of 301 highly experienced arthroscopists (instructors of the AGA, the German-speaking society of arthroscopy) were contacted in writing with a request to complete the survey. The data from 105 respondents (34.8% of those contacted) were used for the investigation. In the grading of the cartilage lesions, the Outerbridge classification was most frequently used (n = 87), followed by the ICRS protocol (n = 8) and the Insall score (n = 3). The majority (61%) of the arthroscopic surgeons felt that differentiation between healthy cartilage and low-grade cartilage lesions was simple. For differentiation between grade I and grade II lesions, and for differentiation between grade II and grade III lesions, 41.9 and 51.4%, respectively, thought that there was a need for improvement. In the case of grade IV lesions, 70.5% of the surgeons thought that the diagnosis was valid. The respondents also judged the utility of incorporating objective measurements (e.g., intraoperative biomechanical tests): 13.3% (n = 14) responded that such measurements would be very useful and 61.9% (n = 65) responded that they would be somewhat useful. Among surgeons, arthroscopy was not perceived to be as reliable as a gold standard for the diagnosis of cartilage lesions. The majority of experienced arthroscopists felt unsure of the results in general, or at least in some cases. A universal and definitive grading system for lesions appears to be needed. For questionable cases, measurement devices are needed for objective cartilage grading.