Private knee specialist

In my clinical experience, the decision is not MRI‑driven alone. If there is recurrent locking, a clear mechanical block, or instability that matches your symptoms, arthroscopy may be the right tool. If pain is controlled, motion is good, and imaging findings do not match day‑to‑day function, we prioritize conservative management (physiotherapy, load management, and in selected cases biologic options) with clear 2–6 week goals.

The goal is to estimate healing potential, instability risk, and long‑term joint mechanics. Tear pattern influences whether observation/rehab is reasonable, whether repair is considered, and how transparent we should be about expected recovery and return‑to‑activity timelines.

We start with examination findings, instability severity, and the activity level you want to return to. In my experience, when stability is relatively preserved and demands are lower, a careful non‑operative pathway can be appropriate. When you need pivoting/high‑demand activity, or instability is objective and recurrent, I discuss ACL reconstruction candidacy openly—including recovery milestones and risk.

Both are biologic approaches, but preparation, inflammatory profile, and clinical intent differ. Selection depends on diagnosis pattern, symptom duration, medications, and whether there is active inflammatory flare. The goal is a functional gain tied to a movement plan—not an injection because it exists.

If symptoms changed substantially or a long time passed, updated imaging may be warranted. If the MRI is high quality, clinically matched to the question, and still representative, we can start there and add tests only if the exam requires it.

Recovery depends on the procedure performed, associated findings, baseline fitness, and adherence to rehab. In my practice, the priority is a phased plan with clear pain/swelling rules so you do not return to load too early and pay for it in the joint.