I just paid my MRI bill today and decided to call the radiologist's office to get their take on my MRI report.
Didn't realize that the reason the radiologist gives for noting the injury is "recent" (doctor said it was old, and dismissed it as a possibility for pain), is that the MRI shows EDEMA. Wow... that is totally new! Apparently, the edema is INSIDE the ACL as well as around it.
The radio doctor said, edema usually points to recent trauma, unless its a chronic. I know that I twisted it five months back for the first time, and haven't walked on it normally since. So why in the world the OS would tell me its an "OLD injury that is far too small to be bothering you now"? He said he could tell (that it was old) by LOOKING at the MRI...when I pressed for clarification.
VERY strange. I would have not known that there was even ACL issue if I had not picked up the report myself before heading into seeing him. Only after he turned to me and told me my MRI "unfortunately looked excellent" (which struck me as an odd way to put it)...did I bring up the line of questioning about the ACL.
He apparently would not have.
Radio doc also said that she would expect the edema to cause considerable disabling pain, and that one would think OS would want to tell me to stay off it, and to work at getting the edema down.
In this condition, she suggested the ACL could get stretched out, if its not already. Thankfully, she confirmed again that she sees no tear at present.
Now, I don't know if her opinion is totally correct, but its another take to add to the mix, and I'm very grateful to her for that. I'm glad I thought of calling her.
She agreed that getting a second opinion might have some merit. And she was kind enough to say the she would consult with my new doctor regarding her report if I'd like.
Its amazing how two professionals can see things so differently.