OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of 0.3T Magnetic resonance imaging for knee injuries compared to Arthroscopy or high field MRI.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google scholar. A PRISMA method was used to curate and collocate the studies

RESULTS: A total of 8489 citations were obtained of which only 3 studies met our selection criteria. Two of the studies compared 0.3 T MRI with the arthroscopy whereas one study compared it with a higher strength MRI, 1.5T.A study carried out by Cevicol C et al. ^1, compared the effectiveness of knee MRI examinations performed on 0.35T and 1.5T MRI devices in the diagnosis of meniscal tears. They found no statistically significant difference between high and low field units in the detection of medial and lateral meniscus tears. Leigheb et. al ^2, confirmed the reliability of low-field MRI for meniscal and ligamentous lesions with a high Sensitivity and specificity percentages for most of the knee injuries. On comparison of likelihood ratios of these three studies it was proven that low-field MRI is as reliable as high field MRI or arthroscopy in diagnosing knee injuries.

CONCLUSIONS: Over the years, several studies confirmed the efficiency of low-field strength MRI in not just knee injuries but shoulder joints and erosive hand osteoarthritis. Recent advanced techniques, such as the use of powered gradients, sophisticated radiofrequency coils, and optimized sequences, have shown that the static field strength itself does not necessarily need to be high ^3. In this review, since the data was scarce, we were not able to extensively compare 0.3 strength with other existing high-field MRIs. But we found no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy of knee injuries. This gives us more confidence that in future, low-field MRI systems will be more widespread in coming years.