Controversies

As Seminars in Musculoskeletal Radiology approaches its tenth year, it is appropriate to pause and take stock. We have presented several issues that were organ- or articulation-based. We have had several other issues that were more global in scope, such as an overview of musculoskeletal infections, pediatric musculoskeletal imaging, and instability. Dr. Richard Daffner’s guest-edited issue is perhaps the most global we have covered. David and I gave him a simple title and idea: Controversies.

Dr. Daffner has picked six very appropriate areas of potential disagreement. Interestingly, two of them deal with the use of MR arthrography. One examines whether MR arthrography is necessary at all; the other, a comparison of direct versus indirect techniques. Arthur De Smet and Bill Morrison, respectively, have done excellent jobs of discussing the merits of each point of view. Jon Jacobs, a reknown musculoskeletal ultrasonographer, discusses the controversy surrounding the use of MR, versus Ultrasound, in the evaluation of joint derangements. There is another article by Dr. Garry Gold with a more detailed look into internal derangement; one that focuses on articular cartilage. I can think of no one better qualified to discuss advances in pulse sequences than Dr. Gold.

Finally there are two articles dealing with trauma. This is Dr. Daffner’s area of particular expertise and he has selected to cover in detail two of the most important of traumatized regions. His article reflects on cervical spine trauma while the other, contributed by Dr. John Harris, considers the classification of acetabular fractures.

In my current position I have an array of administrative responsibilities. Looking at other administrators, there are many schools of thought to management. In particular, in terms of managing professionals, some people like to provide detailed instructions about what should be accomplished. Others choose to provide an outline and presume that a highly-qualified individual can accomplish much more within that outline, as compared with when something is stipulated explicitly. Dr. Daffner’s task and accomplishment in guest-editing this issue clearly fall into the latter category. In knowing his experience, expertise, and skill set we provided a one word outline of the task: “Controversies.” With that, Dick has accomplished much more then either David or I could have conceivably expected. This is another excellent issue of Seminars, and it is all due to Richard Daffner’s expertise and gravitas, and we extend our heartfelt appreciation.