Purpose of review: This review is an attempt to keep current in the sparse literature addressing the still underutilized area of crystal identification.
Recent findings: The emphasis has been on the subtleties of the microscopic identification of common crystals and other less common potentially confusing crystals. Imaging is noted to provide increasing help, but microscopic crystal identification remains the gold standard.
Summary: Quality control is still a concern as is the infrequency of attempted arthrocentesis for crystal identification.