Computed Tomography Assessment of Anatomic Graft Placement After ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Grid and Angle Measurements

Background: The anatomic placement of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts is often assessed with postoperative imaging. In clinical practice, graft angles are measured to indicate anatomic placement on magnetic resonance imaging, whereas grid measurements are performed on computed tomography (CT). Recently, a study indicated that graft angle measurements could also be assessed on CT. No consensus has yet been reached on which measurement method is best suited to assess anatomic graft placement. Purpose: To compare the ability of grid measurements and angle measurements to identify anatomic versus nonanatomic tunnel placement on CT performed in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 100 knees undergoing primary reconstruction with a hamstring graft (HAM group), 91 undergoing reconstruction with a bone–patellar tendon–bone graft (BPTB group), and 117 undergoing revision ACL reconstruction (REV group) were assessed with CT. Grid measurements of the femoral and tibial tunnels and angle measurements of grafts were performed. Graft placement, rated as anatomic or nonanatomic, was assessed with both methods. Pearson chi-square, analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and weighted kappa tests were performed as appropriate. Results: The grid assessment classified 10% of the HAM group, 4% of the BPTB group, and 17% of the REV group as nonanatomic (P < .001). The angle assessment classified 37% of the HAM group, 54% of the BPTB group, and 47% of the REV group as nonanatomic. The weighted kappa between angle measurements and grid measurements was low in all groups (HAM: 0.009; BPTB: 0.065; REV: 0.041). Conclusion: The agreement between grid measurements and angle measurements was very low. The angle measurements seemed to overestimate nonanatomic tunnel placement. Grid measurements were better in identifying malpositioned grafts.publishedVersio

The anatomic centers of the femoral and tibial insertions of the anterior cruciate ligament: a systematic review of imaging and cadaveric studies reporting normal center locations

Background: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is regularly reconstructed if knee joint function is impaired. Anatomic graft tunnel placement, often assessed with varying measurement methods, in the femur and tibia is considered important for an optimal clinical outcome. A consensus on the exact location of the femoral and tibial footprint centers is lacking. Purpose: To systematically review the literature regarding anatomic centers of the femoral and tibial ACL footprints and assess the mean, median, and percentiles of normal centers. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database in November 2015. Search terms were the following: “ACL” and “insertion anatomy” or “anatomic footprint” or “radiographic landmarks” or “quadrant methods” or “tunnel placement” or “cadaveric femoral” or “cadaveric tibial.” English-language articles that reported the location of the ACL footprint according to the Bernard and Hertel grid in the femur and the Stäubli and Rauschning method in the tibia were included. Weighted means, weighted medians, and weighted 5th and 95th percentiles were calculated. Results: The initial search yielded 1393 articles. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies with measurements on cadaveric specimens or a healthy population were reviewed. The weighted mean of the femoral insertion center based on measurements in 218 knees was 29% in the deep-shallow (DS) direction and 35% in the high-low (HL) direction. The weighted median was 26% for DS and 34% for HL. The weighted 5th and 95th percentiles for DS were 24% and 37%, respectively, and for HL were 28% and 43%, respectively. The weighted mean of the tibial insertion center in the anterior-posterior direction based on measurements in 300 knees was 42%, and the weighted median was 44%; the 5th and 95th percentiles were 39% and 46%, respectively. Conclusion: Our results show slight differences between the weighted means and medians in the femoral and tibial insertion centers. We recommend the use of the 5th and 95th percentiles when considering postoperative placement to be “in or out of the anatomic range.

Computed Tomography Assessment of Anatomic Graft Placement After ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Grid and Angle Measurements

Background: The anatomic placement of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts is often assessed with postoperative imaging. In clinical practice, graft angles are measured to indicate anatomic placement on magnetic resonance imaging, whereas grid measurements are performed on computed tomography (CT). Recently, a study indicated that graft angle measurements could also be assessed on CT. No consensus has yet been reached on which measurement method is best suited to assess anatomic graft placement. Purpose: To compare the ability of grid measurements and angle measurements to identify anatomic versus nonanatomic tunnel placement on CT performed in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 100 knees undergoing primary reconstruction with a hamstring graft (HAM group), 91 undergoing reconstruction with a bone–patellar tendon–bone graft (BPTB group), and 117 undergoing revision ACL reconstruction (REV group) were assessed with CT. Grid measurements of the femoral and tibial tunnels and angle measurements of grafts were performed. Graft placement, rated as anatomic or nonanatomic, was assessed with both methods. Pearson chi-square, analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and weighted kappa tests were performed as appropriate. Results: The grid assessment classified 10% of the HAM group, 4% of the BPTB group, and 17% of the REV group as nonanatomic (P < .001). The angle assessment classified 37% of the HAM group, 54% of the BPTB group, and 47% of the REV group as nonanatomic. The weighted kappa between angle measurements and grid measurements was low in all groups (HAM: 0.009; BPTB: 0.065; REV: 0.041). Conclusion: The agreement between grid measurements and angle measurements was very low. The angle measurements seemed to overestimate nonanatomic tunnel placement. Grid measurements were better in identifying malpositioned grafts