Lateral meniscus posterior root tear in anterior cruciate ligament injury can be detected using MRI-specific signs in combination but not individually.
Adolescent
Adult
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Arthroscopy
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Hemarthrosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Male
Menisci, Tibial
/ diagnostic imaging
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tibial Meniscus Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Young Adult
Anterior cruciate ligament
Bone bruise
Early posttraumatic phase
Lateral meniscus posterior root tear
Magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
30
01
2019
accepted:
24
06
2019
pubmed:
30
6
2019
medline:
7
2
2021
entrez:
30
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to evaluate (1) the diagnostic value of using single and multiple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings for lateral meniscus posterior root tear (LMPRT) detection in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and (2) the influence of time from ACL injury to MRI assessment on LMPRT detection. Finally, we investigated the relationship between LMPRT and bone bruising. In all, 231 knees with ACL injury, 32 with LMPRT, were retrospectively assessed. Cases were evaluated for LMPRT based on the cleft, ghost, and truncated triangle signs, used individually or in combination. To assess the influence of the timing of the MRI assessment on LMPRT detection, we also evaluated the overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in cases in which MRI was performed within 2 weeks of injury. The number of condyles with bone bruising was assessed and then compared between patients with and without LMPRT. Although the sensitivity and specificity of the three signs individually were 34.4-65.6% and 94.0-97.0%, when at least one of these signs was positive, the sensitivity and specificity were 84.4% and 90.5%, respectively. However, the diagnostic value of each sign when MRI was performed within 2 weeks of injury was lower than the overall value. There was a significant difference in the number of condyles with bone bruising between the LMPRT (3 ± 1) and non-LMPRT (2 ± 2) groups. Although the sensitivity of each sign for LMPRT was low, LMPRT could be detected adequately if these signs were used in combination. Therefore, surgeons should detect LMPRT using these three signs in combination, not individually. IV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31254029
doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05599-9
pii: 10.1007/s00167-019-05599-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM