van der List Jelle P, Mintz Douglas N, DiFelice Gregory S
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Department of Radiology and Imaging, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Jun 22;5(6):2325967117709966. doi: 10.1177/2325967117709966. eCollection 2017 Jun.
Over the past decade, there has been a resurgence of interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) preservation. Proximal and distal avulsion tears have been treated with arthroscopic primary repair, while augmented repair, remnant tensioning, primary repair with biological scaffold, and remnant preservation have been proposed for different types of midsubstance tears. Currently, the incidence of these different tear types is unknown.
To propose a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification system for different tear types based on clinical relevance and to assess the distribution of these different ACL tear types.
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
A retrospective search in an institutional radiographic database was performed for patients who underwent knee MRI at our institution between June 2014 and June 2016. Patients younger than 18 years and those with reports of chronic tears, partial tears, multiligamentous injuries, were excluded. Tear types were graded as proximal avulsion (distal remnant length >90% of total ligament length, type I), proximal (75%-90%, type II), midsubstance (25%-75%, type III), distal (10%-25%, type IV), and distal avulsion (<10%, type V). An orthopaedic surgeon, a radiologist, and a research fellow graded the tear type on 30 MRIs to determine reliability, and the research fellow graded all MRIs. Inter- and intraobserver reliability were measured using kappa statistics.
A total of 353 patients (57% male; mean age, 37.1 years; range, 18.1-81.2 years) were included. Interobserver reliability was 0.670 (95% confidence interval, 0.505-0.836), and intraobserver reliability ranged from 0.741 to 0.934. Incidence of type I tears was 16%, type II tears 27%, type III tears 52%, type IV tears 1%, and type V tears 3% (2.5% with bony avulsion). Type I tears were more common in patients older than 35 years compared with those younger than 35 years (23% vs 8%; < .001).
This classification system was reliable in assessing tear location in acute ACL injuries. Type I tears were seen in 16%, type II in 27%, and type III in 52% of patients in our cohort. These data suggest that there may be greater potential application for ACL preservation techniques.
在过去十年中,对前交叉韧带(ACL)保留的兴趣再度兴起。近端和远端撕脱伤已采用关节镜下一期修复治疗,而对于不同类型的韧带中部撕裂,有人提出了加强修复、残余张力调整、生物支架一期修复和残余保留等方法。目前,这些不同撕裂类型的发生率尚不清楚。
基于临床相关性提出一种针对不同撕裂类型的磁共振成像(MRI)分类系统,并评估这些不同ACL撕裂类型的分布情况。
病例系列;证据等级,4级。
对2014年6月至2016年6月在本机构接受膝关节MRI检查的患者进行机构影像学数据库的回顾性检索。排除年龄小于18岁以及有慢性撕裂、部分撕裂、多韧带损伤报告的患者。撕裂类型分为近端撕脱(远端残余长度>总韧带长度的90%,I型)、近端(75%-90%,II型)、韧带中部(25%-75%,III型)、远端(10%-25%,IV型)和远端撕脱(<10%,V型)。一名骨科医生、一名放射科医生和一名研究员对30例MRI进行撕裂类型分级以确定可靠性,研究员对所有MRI进行分级。观察者间和观察者内可靠性采用kappa统计量进行测量。
共纳入353例患者(57%为男性;平均年龄37.1岁;范围18.1-81.2岁)。观察者间可靠性为0.670(95%置信区间,0.505-0.836),观察者内可靠性范围为0.741至0.934。I型撕裂的发生率为16%,II型撕裂为27%,III型撕裂为52%,IV型撕裂为1%,V型撕裂为3%(2.5%伴有骨撕脱)。与35岁以下患者相比,I型撕裂在35岁以上患者中更为常见(23%对8%;P<0.001)。
该分类系统在评估急性ACL损伤的撕裂部位方面是可靠的。在我们的队列中,16%的患者为I型撕裂,27%为II型,52%为III型。这些数据表明ACL保留技术可能有更大的潜在应用价值。