Reliability of Anatomic Bony Landmark Localization of the ACL Femoral Footprint Using 3D MRI.
3D MRI
ACL footprint
anterior cruciate ligament
femoral footprint
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
21
04
2021
accepted:
25
05
2021
entrez:
25
10
2021
pubmed:
26
10
2021
medline:
26
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Nonanatomic placement of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts is a leading cause of ACL graft failure. Three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) femoral footprint localization could enhance planning for an ACL graft's position. To determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of measurements of the ACL femoral footprint position and size obtained from 3D MRI scans. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. A total of 41 patients with complete ACL tears were recruited between November 2014 and May 2016. Preoperatively, a coronal-oblique proton-density fast spin echo 3D acquisition of the contralateral uninjured knee was obtained along the plane of the ACL using a 1.5T MRI scanner. ACL footprint parameters were obtained independently by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists (observers A and B). The distal and anterior positions of the center of the footprint were measured relative to the apex of the deep cartilage at the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle, and the surface area of the ACL femoral footprint was approximated from multiplanar reformatted images. After 1 month, the measurements were repeated. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess for intra- and interobserver reliability. Bland-Altman plots were produced to screen for potential systematic bias in measurement and to calculate limits of agreement. The ICCs for intraobserver reliability of the ACL femoral distal and anterior footprint coordinates were 0.75 and 0.78, respectively, for observer A. For observer B, they were 0.75 and 0.74, respectively. The ICCs for interobserver reliability were 0.75 and 0.85 for the distal and anterior coordinates, respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated no significant systematic bias. For surface area measurements, the intraobserver ICCs were 0.37 and 0.62 for observers A and B, respectively. The interobserver reliability was 0.60. Observer B consistently measured the footprints as slightly larger versus observer A (1.19 ± 0.27 vs 1 ± 0.22 cm Locating the center of the anatomic footprint of the ACL with 3D MRI showed substantial intra- and interobserver agreement. Interobserver agreement for the femoral footprint surface area was fair to moderate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Nonanatomic placement of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts is a leading cause of ACL graft failure. Three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) femoral footprint localization could enhance planning for an ACL graft's position.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of measurements of the ACL femoral footprint position and size obtained from 3D MRI scans.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 41 patients with complete ACL tears were recruited between November 2014 and May 2016. Preoperatively, a coronal-oblique proton-density fast spin echo 3D acquisition of the contralateral uninjured knee was obtained along the plane of the ACL using a 1.5T MRI scanner. ACL footprint parameters were obtained independently by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists (observers A and B). The distal and anterior positions of the center of the footprint were measured relative to the apex of the deep cartilage at the posteromedial aspect of the lateral femoral condyle, and the surface area of the ACL femoral footprint was approximated from multiplanar reformatted images. After 1 month, the measurements were repeated. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess for intra- and interobserver reliability. Bland-Altman plots were produced to screen for potential systematic bias in measurement and to calculate limits of agreement.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The ICCs for intraobserver reliability of the ACL femoral distal and anterior footprint coordinates were 0.75 and 0.78, respectively, for observer A. For observer B, they were 0.75 and 0.74, respectively. The ICCs for interobserver reliability were 0.75 and 0.85 for the distal and anterior coordinates, respectively. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated no significant systematic bias. For surface area measurements, the intraobserver ICCs were 0.37 and 0.62 for observers A and B, respectively. The interobserver reliability was 0.60. Observer B consistently measured the footprints as slightly larger versus observer A (1.19 ± 0.27 vs 1 ± 0.22 cm
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Locating the center of the anatomic footprint of the ACL with 3D MRI showed substantial intra- and interobserver agreement. Interobserver agreement for the femoral footprint surface area was fair to moderate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34692880
doi: 10.1177/23259671211042603
pii: 10.1177_23259671211042603
pmc: PMC8532227
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671211042603Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Arthroscopy. 2014 Oct;30(10):1303-10
pubmed: 25085049
Arthroscopy. 2012 Aug;28(8):1135-46
pubmed: 22440794
Orthop J Sports Med. 2020 Mar 27;8(3):2325967120909913
pubmed: 32284939
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Apr;21(4):789-96
pubmed: 22552621
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Apr;40(4):800-7
pubmed: 22238055
Arthroscopy. 2011 Nov;27(11):1511-22
pubmed: 21963097
Am J Sports Med. 2008 May;36(5):851-60
pubmed: 18272793
Arthroscopy. 2014 Jul;30(7):849-55
pubmed: 24821225
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 May;20(5):986-95
pubmed: 21987362
Arthroscopy. 2010 Sep;26(9 Suppl):S13-20
pubmed: 20667684
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jan;46(1):192-199
pubmed: 28972789
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016 Nov;136(11):1571-1580
pubmed: 27484876
J Knee Surg. 2012 Nov;25(5):361-8
pubmed: 23150344
J Knee Surg. 2016 Oct;29(7):528-532
pubmed: 27454829
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Oct;38(10):1979-86
pubmed: 20889962
Arthroscopy. 2003 Mar;19(3):297-304
pubmed: 12627155
J Knee Surg. 2015 Feb;28(1):89-94
pubmed: 24622911
Arthroscopy. 2007 Dec;23(12):1326-33
pubmed: 18063177
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jul;43(7):1583-90
pubmed: 25899429
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Nov;23(11):3143-50
pubmed: 24972997
Arthroscopy. 2012 Jun;28(6):872-81
pubmed: 22301358
Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 Dec 07;4(12):2325967116673797
pubmed: 28050574
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Oct;44(10):2563-2571
pubmed: 27440804
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):118-25
pubmed: 26564792
Comput Aided Surg. 2001;6(5):279-89
pubmed: 11892004
Arthroscopy. 2016 Feb;32(2):321-9.e1
pubmed: 26603824
Arthroscopy. 2017 Feb;33(2):394-397
pubmed: 27771171
Arthroscopy. 2008 May;24(5):585-92
pubmed: 18442692
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Jul;41(7):1534-40
pubmed: 23722056
Arthroscopy. 2015 Sep;31(9):1777-83
pubmed: 25980920
J Knee Surg. 2004 Jul;17(3):127-32
pubmed: 15366266
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Jan;25(1):165-171
pubmed: 27295056
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Feb;45(2):394-402
pubmed: 27651395
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Oct;38(10):1987-96
pubmed: 20702859
J Knee Surg. 2014 Feb;27(1):89-92
pubmed: 24227399
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
J Knee Surg. 2015 Oct;28(5):390-4
pubmed: 25635874
Arthroscopy. 1999 Oct;15(7):741-9
pubmed: 10524822