OK, so I’m seeing the PA on Wed. to discuss on-going symptoms in my left leg. I really don’t think it’s a blown knee, cuz there are other nerve-y type things going on, including weird sensations in my foot.
I hate MRIs. But if it will give me a better idea, including perhaps vascular involvement, I’ll do it. But if I can get by with a CT to see if my knee is wonky, then I’d like to do it that way.
I actually chose to see my doc’s PA because he is amazingly thorough and caring. My ortho surgeon just wants to know when I’ll be ready for another hip replacement. :mad: No offense to doctors on board here.
Anyone have pros and cons to offer on subject of diagnostic powers of CT vs MRI?
Why on earth are you asking us? Go with whichever technique your doctor says has the best “diagnostic power” in this case. If you don’t trust his/her advice, change doctors.
They sort of show opposite things. Cat-scans (CT) use Xrays to create 3d images of the solid parts of the body; MRI uses magnetism to create 3D images of the water in the body, that is, of the soft tissues. (This is a simplification etc etc)
So which one to use depends on what your doctor is looking for. An MRI wouldn’t be as useful to find broken bones as a regular Xray or a CT; OTOH if you’re looking for something “broken” in soft tissue, the Xray based techniques wouldn’t be any good.
CT of the knee has very limited uses, and is used primarily for evaluation of complicated fractures. MRI allows you to evaluate the soft tissues - vessels, nerves, tendons, ligaments, menisci, etc.
I am sorry that you hate MRIs, but that is without a doubt the way to go.