The relationship between graft intensity on MRI and tibial tunnel placement in anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction
To determine whether the graft signal intensity of the anteromedial bundle (AMB) on MRI was related to the tibial tunnel placement, anterior–posterior (A–P) stability, and/or cyclops lesion formation following double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
Between January 2010 and August 2016, 65 patients underwent arthroscopic DB-ACL reconstruction and were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Follow-up included 1-week postoperative CT evaluation, 1-year postoperative MRI evaluation, and 2-year postoperative measurement of A–P instability using a KT-2000 arthrometer. Tibial tunnel placement and the location of Parson’s knob were expressed as percentages. Patients were divided into two groups according to the graft signal intensity of the AMB on MRI: the high group (grades 2, 3; group H) and the low group (grade 1; group L).
There were 23 knees in group H and 42 knees in group L. There was no difference between the two groups regarding the position of Parson’s knob. The AMB placement in the tibial tunnel in group H was more anterior than that in group L. The incidence of a cyclops lesion was significantly greater in group H [13 cases (56.5%)] compared with group L [7 cases (16.7%); P = .05]. The arthrometric side-to-side difference was significantly greater in group H (1.67 mm) than in group L (0.90 mm; P = .019).
Group H had a more anterior tunnel location and significantly greater incidence of cyclops lesions than group L. An increased signal intensity of the AMB on MRI indicates A–P instability.
Level of evidence
Level III retrospective cohort study.
KeywordsArthroscopy Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) Double-bundle reconstruction Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) Tunnel placement Graft signal intensity
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.Bernard M, Hertel P, Hornung H, Cierpinski T (1997) Femoral insertion of the ACL. Radiographic quadrant method. Am J Knee Surg Winter 10(1):14–21Google Scholar
- 8.David M, Bradley A, Bergman G (2000) MR imaging of cyclops lesions. Am J Roentgenol 174(3):719–726Google Scholar
- 22.Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelbone KD (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29(5):600–613Google Scholar
- 25.Kiekara T, Järvelä T, Huhtala H, Paakkala A (2012) MRI of double-bundle ACL reconstruction: evaluation of graft findings. Skeltal Radiol 41:835–842Google Scholar
- 32.Mueller T, Kdolsky R, Großschmidt K, Schabus R, Kwasny O, Plenk H Jr (1999) Cyclops and cyclopoid formation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical and histomorphological differences. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:284–289Google Scholar
- 33.Nishimori M, Furuta T, Deie M (2014) Parsons’ knob, the bony landmark of the tibial insertion of the anterior cruciate ligament, evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography. Asia-Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol 1:126–131Google Scholar
- 45.Takeda Y, Iwame T, Takasago T, Kondo K, Goto T, Fujii K, Naruse A (2013) Comparison of tunnel orientation between transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques for anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Arthroscopy 29(2):195–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.Van der Bracht H et al (2014) Can a tibial tunnel in ACL surgery be placed anatomically without impinging on the femoral notch? A risk factor analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthroscopy 22:291–297Google Scholar