[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
56, I think the point is that anything that was more substantial would’ve shown up on a physical exam. Any soft tissue rupture or significant tear would’ve been obvious during an exam. One of my chiro colleagues was rehabbing a knee for almost 2 weeks before they received a follow up from the imaging center that upon re investigation of the image the ACL is laying on the tibial plateau–full rupture. They missed a full ACL rupture on an MRI. The thing about that case is that the rehab didn’t change–the patient just needed surgery at some point.[/quote]
I see your point and it is well taken.
However, you’re simply not factoring in the possibility of human error.
And hospital records are littered with cases in which something obvious was missed by a trained professional.
So, you’re relying on the infallibility of ALL medical personnel to excel at their jobs ALL the time. Thanks but if it was my body or that of someone I cared about, I’ll pursue the matter one relatively painless step by getting the imaging.
So again, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. It’s your prerogative to argue that imaging isn’t necessary. And trolls who have zero business giving out advice in this subforum can hunt down abstracts that support you - just to spite me more than anything else.
However, experience tells me that it’s better to have some degree of redundancy. Yes, people make mistakes and mis-read MRIs. Conversely, people make mistakes and miss something in the manual testing.
So let’s collect as much data using different protocols and see where the consensus is. My guess is that trivium, based on his initial meeting with the doc, doesn’t have a great deal of faith in him and will appreciate another viewpoint.