The Reliability of 3-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Identify Arthroscopic Features of Meniscal Tears and Its Utility to Predict Meniscal Tear Reparability.

BACKGROUND

The ability to predict meniscus tear reparability based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is desirable for postoperative planning; however, the accuracy of predictive methods varies widely within the orthopaedic and radiology literature.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to determine if the higher resolution offered by 3-T MRI improves the accuracy of predicting reparability compared with previous investigations using 1.5-T MRI. Our hypothesis was that a higher field strength of 3-T MRI would result in improved reliability assessments and predictions of meniscus tear reparability compared with previous studies utilizing a 1.5-T MRI platform.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 44 patients who underwent meniscus repair were matched by age, sex, and body mass index to 43 patients who underwent partial meniscectomy. Overall, 2 orthopaedic surgeons and 2 musculoskeletal radiologists independently and blindly reviewed the preoperative MRI scans for all 87 patients. For each meniscus tear, reviewers evaluated the following criteria: tear pattern, tear length, tear distance from the meniscocapsular junction, tear thickness, and integrity of any inner meniscal fragment. The resultant data were then applied to 5 different approaches for predicting meniscal reparability.

RESULTS

The accuracy for all examined prediction methods was poor, ranging from 55% (3-point method) to 72% (classification tree method) among all reviewers. Interobserver reliability for examined criteria was also poor, with kappa values ranging from 0.07 (inner meniscal fragment status) to 0.40 (tear pattern).

CONCLUSION

MRI continues to be a poor predictor of meniscus tear reparability as assessed by arthroscopic criteria, even when using higher resolution 3-T scanners. Interobserver reliability in this setting can be poor, even among experienced clinicians.