Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(07): 649-658
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1666830
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Can Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predict Intraoperative Autograft Size for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? A Systematic Review

Suhail Agarwal
1   Department of Medicine, Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Darren de SA
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Devin C. Peterson
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Daniel Parmar
3   Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Nicole Simunovic
4   Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Rick Ogilvie
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
,
Volker Musahl
5   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Olufemi R. Ayeni
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

13 March 2018

26 May 2018

Publication Date:
06 July 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This systematic review explored the utility of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as a tool for predicting intraoperative graft size for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE) were searched in November 2017 for English-language studies of all levels of evidence that aimed to correlate preoperative MRI measurements of common primary ACL autograft sources to intraoperative measurements of the harvested graft. Two reviewers applied predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria to independently complete title, abstract, and full-text review of eligible studies. Data abstraction, quality assessment, and descriptive statistics are presented. A systematic screen of 930 titles resulted in 14 studies satisfying inclusion/exclusion criteria. These studies examined 762 patients of mean age 28.6 (9–67) years, with 37.3% females. Comparing the correlation of preoperative MRI measurements to intraoperative harvested measures, the strength was very highly positive for quadriceps tendon (QT) (one study, 29 patients, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.96), highly positive for patellar tendon (two studies, 28 patients, ICC: 0.77–0.87), negligible-highly positive for semitendinosus-only tendon (eight studies, 439 patients, r: 0.16–0.81), and negligible-moderately positive for gracilis-only tendon (four studies, 143 patients, r: 0.29–0.59). When combined semitendinosus–gracilis tendon grafts were considered, the correlation ranged from low-very highly positive (10 studies, 517 patients, r: 0.42–0.93). Preoperative MRI assessment of both QT and bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts most highly correlates with intraoperative measurements of autograft diameter. Considerable variability exists when viewing hamstring tendons either individually or together, where most studies indicate at least a moderate correlation. This highlights the advantage of MRI during the preoperative planning process in equipping the surgeon with a better ability to ensure the diameter of the intended autograft will suffice. This is a Level IV study, systematic review of Levels II to IV studies.

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging - anterior cruciate ligament - autograft - size - correlation
 

  • References

  • 1 Kim HS, Seon JK, Jo AR. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Relat Res 2013; 25 (04) 165-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kaeding CC, Léger-St-Jean B, Magnussen RA. Epidemiology and diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Clin Sports Med 2017; 36 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lynch TS, Parker RD, Patel RM. , et al; MOON Group. The Impact of the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Research on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and orthopaedic practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (03) 154-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bach Jr BR. Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Arthroscopy 2003; 19 (Suppl. 01) 14-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Baer GS, Harner CD. Clinical outcomes of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med 2007; 26 (04) 661-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE. Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48 (21) 1543-1552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Joreitz R, Lynch A, Rabuck S, Lynch B, Davin S, Irrgang J. Patient-specific and surgery-specific factors that affect return to sport after ACL reconstruction. Int J Sports Phys Ther 2016; 11 (02) 264-278
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lai CCH, Ardern CL, Feller JA, Webster KE. Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to preinjury sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52 (02) 128-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Christino MA, Fantry AJ, Vopat BG. Psychological Aspects of Recovery Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (08) 501-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Coronado RA, Bird ML, Van Hoy EE, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Archer KR. Do psychosocial interventions improve rehabilitation outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2018; 32 (03) 287-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Prodromos CC, Fu FH, Howell SM, Johnson DH, Lawhorn K. Controversies in soft-tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: grafts, bundles, tunnels, fixation, and harvest. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16 (07) 376-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Björnsson H, Samuelsson K, Sundemo D. , et al. A randomized controlled trial with mean 16-year follow-up comparing hamstring and patellar tendon autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44 (09) 2304-2313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Carey JL, Shea KG. AAOS clinical practice guideline: management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries: evidence-based guideline. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (05) e6-e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (04) 331-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wernecke GC, Constantinidis A, Harris IA, Seeto BG, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ. The diameter of single bundle, hamstring autograft does not significantly influence revision rate or clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee 2017; 24 (05) 1033-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Magnussen RA, Lawrence JT, West RL, Toth AP, Taylor DC, Garrett WE. Graft size and patient age are predictors of early revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (04) 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mariscalco MW, Flanigan DC, Mitchell J. , et al. The influence of hamstring autograft size on patient-reported outcomes and risk of revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) Cohort Study. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 (12) 1948-1953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Park SY, Oh H, Park S, Lee JH, Lee SH, Yoon KH. Factors predicting hamstring tendon autograft diameters and resulting failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (05) 1111-1118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chiba D, Tsuda E, Sasaki S, Liu X, Ishibashi Y. Anthropometric and skeletal parameters predict 2-strand semitendinosus tendon size in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (08) 2325967117720148
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Jacobs CA, Burnham JM, Makhni E, Malempati CS, Swart E, Johnson DL. Allograft augmentation of hamstring autograft for younger patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (04) 892-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pennock AT, Ho B, Parvanta K. , et al. Does allograft augmentation of small-diameter hamstring autograft ACL grafts reduce the incidence of graft retear?. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (02) 334-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Goyal S, Matias N, Pandey V, Acharya K. Are pre-operative anthropometric parameters helpful in predicting length and thickness of quadrupled hamstring graft for ACL reconstruction in adults? A prospective study and literature review. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (01) 173-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, van der Schans CP. Clinical diagnosis of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006; 36 (05) 267-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jarbo KA, Hartigan DE, Scott KL, Patel KA, Chhabra A. Accuracy of the lever sign test in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (10) 2325967117729809
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Borchers JR, Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Wright RW. ; MOON Consortium and the MARS Group. Intra-articular findings in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a comparison of the MOON and MARS study groups. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (09) 1889-1893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. , et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, Keitz S, Leipzig R, For GG. ; Evidence-Based Medicine Teaching Tips Working Group. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). CMAJ 2004; 171 (11) 1369-1373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 2012; 24 (03) 69-71
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 An VVG, Scholes C, Mhaskar VA, Parker DA, Fritsch BA. Regression modelling combining MRI measurements and patient anthropometry for patient screening and prediction of graft diameter in hamstring autograft arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol 2017; 8: 24-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Beyzadeoglu T, Akgun U, Tasdelen N, Karahan M. Prediction of semitendinosus and gracilis autograft sizes for ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (07) 1293-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bickel BA, Fowler TT, Mowbray JG, Adler B, Klingele K, Phillips G. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging cross-sectional area for the measurement of hamstring autograft diameter for reconstruction of the adolescent anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (12) 1336-1341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chang CB, Seong SC, Kim TK. Preoperative magnetic resonance assessment of patellar tendon dimensions for graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (02) 376-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cobanoglu M, Ozgezmez FT, Omurlu IK, Ozkan I, Savk SO, Cullu E. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of semitendinosus tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: does this have an effect on graft choice?. Indian J Orthop 2016; 50 (05) 499-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Erquicia JI, Gelber PE, Doreste JL, Pelfort X, Abat F, Monllau JC. How to improve the prediction of quadrupled semitendinosus and gracilis autograft sizes with magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (08) 1857-1863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Galanis N, Savvidis M, Tsifountoudis I. , et al. Correlation between semitendinosus and gracilis tendon cross-sectional area determined using ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative tendon measurements. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2016; 26: 44-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Grawe BM, Williams PN, Burge A. , et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autologous hamstring: can preoperative magnetic resonance imaging accurately predict graft diameter?. Orthop J Sports Med 2016; 4 (05) 2325967116646360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hamada M, Shino K, Mitsuoka T, Abe N, Horibe S. Cross-sectional area measurement of the semitendinosus tendon for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1998; 14 (07) 696-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kupczik F, Tauscheck LO, Schiavon ME, Sbrissia B, Ernlund LS, Alves RA. Prediction of flexor tendon graft diameter in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Rev Bras Ortop 2016; 51 (04) 405-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Leiter J, Elkurbo M, McRae S, Chiu J, Froese W, MacDonald P. Using pre-operative MRI to predict intraoperative hamstring graft size for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (01) 229-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Serino J, Murray R, Argintar EH. Use of magnetic resonance imaging to predict quadrupled semitendinosus graft diameter in all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopedics 2017; 40 (04) e617-e622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Wernecke G, Harris IA, Houang MT, Seeto BG, Chen DB, MacDessi SJ. Using magnetic resonance imaging to predict adequate graft diameters for autologous hamstring double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (08) 1055-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Zakko P, van Eck CF, Guenther D, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH. Can we predict the size of frequently used autografts in ACL reconstruction?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (12) 3704-3710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Chan KW, Kaplan K, Ong CC, Walsh MG, Schweitzer ME, Sherman OH. Using magnetic resonance imaging to determine preoperative autograft sizes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2012; 70 (04) 241-245
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 McAllister DR, Bergfeld JA, Parker RD, Grooff PN, Valdevit AD. A comparison of preoperative imaging techniques for predicting patellar tendon graft length before cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2001; 29 (04) 461-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Schwartzberg RS. Prediction of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon lengths and diameters for double bundle ACL reconstruction. Am J Orthop 2014; 43 (01) E1-E6
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Janssen RPA, van der Velden MJF, van den Besselaar M, Reijman M. Prediction of length and diameter of hamstring tendon autografts for knee ligament surgery in Caucasians. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (04) 1199-1204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Challa S, Satyaprasad J. Hamstring graft size and anthropometry in south Indian population. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2013; 4 (03) 135-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Çeliktaş M, Gölpinar A, Köse Ö, Sütoluk Z, Çelebi K, Sarpel Y. Prediction of the quadruple hamstring autograft thickness in ACL reconstruction using anthropometric measures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2013; 47 (01) 14-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Pinheiro Jr LF, de Andrade MA, Teixeira LE. , et al. Intra-operative four-stranded hamstring tendon graft diameter evaluation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (05) 811-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 van Eck CF, Illingworth KD, Fu FH. Quadriceps tendon: the forgotten graft. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (04) 441-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Cruz Jr AI, Fabricant PD, Seeley MA, Ganley TJ, Lawrence JT. Change in size of hamstring grafts during preparation for ACL reconstruction: effect of tension and circumferential compression on graft diameter. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (06) 484-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Conte EJ, Hyatt AE, Gatt Jr CJ, Dhawan A. Hamstring autograft size can be predicted and is a potential risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. Arthroscopy 2014; 30 (07) 882-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar