Tunnel positioning assessment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 12months: Comparison between 3D CT
E Ducouret1, P Loriaut2, P Boyer2
1Département de radiologie, CHU Dupuytren, 2, avenue Martin-Luther-King, 87042 Limoges, France.
Background:
Tunnel positioning assessment is a major issue after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. Historically, it used plain X-ray and, more recently, CT with 3D reconstruction. MRI is a reliable method of assessing ACL graft integrity and postoperative complications. To our knowledge, there have been no studies of efficacy in tunnel positioning assessment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of 3D MRI in assessing femoral and tibial tunnel positioning after ACL reconstruction. The hypothesis was that 3D MRI sequences with reconstruction are as accurate as 3D CT for tunnel positioning assessment in ACL reconstruction.
Methods:
Twenty-two patients who underwent an arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using hamstring graft were included in a prospective study. All patients were examined on 3D CT and 3D MRI at 12months post-surgery. Tunnel positioning was assessed on both imaging systems by a musculoskeletal radiologist and an orthopedic surgeon specialized in knee arthroscopy, both blind to all clinical data.
Results:
No statistically significant difference was found between 3D CT and 3D MRI on coronal and sagittal reconstructions. For coronal assessment of tibial tunnel orifice, sagittal assessment of tibial tunnel orifice and sagittal assessment of femoral tunnel orifice, P-values ranged from 0.37 to 0.99, 0.051 to 0.64 and 0.19 to 0.59, respectively. For tibial and femoral tunnel angulation, P-values were respectively 0.52 and 0.29.
Conclusion:
3D MRI is a reliable method to assess femoral and tibia tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction, compared to 3D CT as gold standard. Indeed, in our opinion 3D MRI could in the future replace CT for ACL reconstruction assessment, concerning not only the meniscus and ligaments but also tunnel position.
Level Of Evidence:
Level 3; comparative prospective study.
