Protruding anterior medial meniscus and posterior tibial translation as secondary signs of complete and partial posterior cruciate ligament tear

ESR essentials: MRI of the knee-practice recommendations by ESSR

Many studies and systematic reviews have been published about MRI of the knee and its structures, discussing detailed anatomy, imaging findings, and correlations between imaging and clinical findings. This paper includes evidence-based recommendations for a general radiologist regarding choice of imaging sequences and reporting basic MRI examinations of the knee. We recommend using clinicians' terminology when it is applicable to the imaging findings, for example, when reporting meniscal, ligament and tendon, or cartilage pathology. The intent is to standardise reporting language and to make reports less equivocal. The aim of the paper is to improve the usefulness of the MRI report by understanding the strengths and limitations of the MRI exam with regard to clinical correlation. We hope the implementation of these recommendations into radiological practice will increase diagnostic accuracy and consistency by avoiding pitfalls and reducing overcalling of pathology on MRI of the knee. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The recommendations presented here are meant to aid general radiologists in planning and assessing studies to evaluate acute and chronic knee findings by advocating the use of unequivocal terminology and discussing the strengths and limitations of MRI examination of the knee. KEY POINTS: • On MRI, the knee should be examined and assessed in three orthogonal imaging planes. • The basic general protocol must yield T2-weighted fluid-sensitive and T1-weighted images. • The radiological assessment should include evaluation of ligamentous structures, cartilage, bony structures and bone marrow, soft tissues, bursae, alignment, and incidental findings.

Application of CT-MRI Fusion-Based Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Technique in the Anatomic Study of Posterior Cruciate Ligament

Objective

During PCL reconstruction surgery, precise and personalized positioning of the graft tunnel is very important. In order to obtain patient‐specific anatomical data, we established a three‐dimensional knee joint fusion model to provide a unified imaging strategy, as well as anatomical information, for individualized and accurate posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.

Methods

This is an exploration study. From January 2019 to January 2020, 20 healthy adults randomly were enrolled and assessed via CT and MRI imaging. A three‐dimensional fusion model of the knee joint was generated using the modified MIMIMICS and image fusion software. On the fused image, the areas of the femoral and tibial PCL footprint of both knees were measured. The anatomical center of the PCL footprint was measured at the femoral and tibial ends. The relevant bony landmarks surrounding the PCL femoral and tibial attachment were also measured. Paired t‐tests were employed for all statistical analyzes, and p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

All 20 subjects achieved successful image fusion modeling and measurement, with an average duration of 12 h. The lengths of the LF1‐LF3 were 32.1 ± 1.8, 6.8 ± 2.5, and 23.3 ± 2.1 mm, respectively. The lengths of the LT1‐LT3 were 37.3 ± 3.3, 45.6 ± 5.3, and 6.0 ± 1.2 mm, respectively. The distances between the tibial PCL center of the left knee to the medial groove, champagne‐glass drop‐off, and the apex of the medial intercondylar were 8.4 ± 2.4, 9.2 ± 1.8, and 15.3 ± 1.4 mm, respectively, and the corresponding distances from the right knee were 8.0 ± 2.0, 9.4 ± 2.2, and 16.1 ± 1.8 mm, respectively. We observed no difference between the bilateral sides, in terms of the distance from the PCL center to the PCL attachment‐related landmark, under arthroscopic guidance. The area of the femoral and tibial PCL footprints on the left knee were 115.3 ± 33.5 and 146.6 ± 24.4 mm², respectively, and the corresponding areas on the right knee were 121.8 ± 35.6 and 142.8 ± 19.5 mm², respectively. There was no difference between the bilateral sides in terms of the PCL footprint areas.

Conclusion

In the fusion image, the PCL attachment center and relevant bony landmarks which can be easily identified under arthroscopy can be accurately measured. The model can also obtain personalized anatomical data of the PCL on the unaffected side of the patient, which can guide clinical PCL reconstruction.