Advertisement

Anterior cruciate ligament grafts display differential maturation patterns on magnetic resonance imaging following reconstruction: a systematic review

  • Joseph A. Panos
  • Kate E. Webster
  • Timothy E. HewettEmail author
KNEE

Abstract

Purpose

The appearance of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is related to graft maturity and mechanical strength after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Accordingly, the purpose of this review was to quantitatively analyze reports of serial MRI of the ACL graft during the first year following ACLR; the hypothesis tested was that normalized MRI signal intensity would differ significantly by ACL graft type, graft source, and postoperative time.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched for all studies published prior to June 2018 reporting MRI signal intensity of the ACL graft at multiple time points during the first postoperative year after ACLR. Signal intensity values at 6 and 12 months post-ACLR were normalized to initial measurements and analyzed using a least-squares regression model to study the independent variables of postoperative time, graft type, and graft source on the normalized MRI signal intensity.

Results

An effect of graft type (P = 0.001) with interactions of graft type * time (P = 0.012) and graft source * time (P = 0.001) were observed. Post hoc analyses revealed greater predicted normalized MRI signal intensity of patellar tendon autografts than both hamstring (P = 0.008) and hamstring with remnant preservation (P = 0.001) autografts at postoperative month 12.

Conclusion

MRI signal varies with graft type, graft source, and time after ACLR. Enhanced graft maturity during the first postoperative year was associated with hamstring autografts, with and without remnant preservation. Serial MRI imaging during the first postoperative year may be clinically useful to identify biologically or mechanically deficient ACL grafts at risk for failure.

Level of evidence

IV

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament Magnetic resonance imaging Signal–noise-quotient Ligamentization 

Abbreviations

ACL

Anterior cruciate ligament

ACLR

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

BPTB

Bone–patellar tendon–bone graft

HS

Hamstring graft

HS-RP

Hamstring graft with minimal debridement/remnant preservation surgical technique

TA

Tibialis anterior graft

QUAD

Quadriceps bone graft

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

CI

Confidence interval

SNQ

Signal-to-noise quotient

Notes

Author contributions

TEH conceived the study, participated in the critical evaluation of the data and drafting of the manuscript. KEW participated in the critical evaluation of the data and drafting of the manuscript. JAP conducted the literature review, performed the critical evaluation of the data, and participated in the drafting and revision of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

Funding was provided by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (Grant Nos. R01AR55563, R01AR056259 and T32AR56950).

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as this is a review of the literature not involving humans or animals.

References

  1. 1.
    Abe S, Kurosaka M, Iguchi T, Yoshiya S, Hirohata K (1993) Light and electron microscopic study of remodeling and maturation process in autogenous graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 9:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahn JH, Jeong HJ, Lee YS, Park JH, Lee JH, Ko TS (2016) Graft bending angle is correlated with femoral intraosseous graft signal intensity in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the outside-in technique. Knee 23:666–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahn JH, Lee SH, Choi SH, Lim TK (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon autografts: comparison of remnant bundle preservation and standard technique. Am J Sports Med 38:1768–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahn JH, Lee YS, Jeong HJ, Park JH, Cho Y, Kim KJ et al (2017) Comparison of transtibial and retrograde outside-in techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in terms of graft nature and clinical outcomes: a case control study using 3T MRI. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amiel D, Kleiner JB, Roux RD, Harwood FL, Akeson WH (1986) The phenomenon of “ligamentization”: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon. J Orthop Res 4:162–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnoczky SP, Tarvin GB, Marshall JL (1982) Anterior cruciate ligament replacement using patellar tendon. An evaluation of graft revascularization in the dog. J Bone Jt Surg Am 64:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrera Oro F, Sikka RS, Wolters B, Graver R, Boyd JL, Nelson B et al (2011) Autograft versus allograft: an economic cost comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 27:1219–1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biercevicz AM, Akelman MR, Fadale PD, Hulstyn MJ, Shalvoy RM, Badger GJ et al (2015) MRI volume and signal intensity of ACL graft predict clinical, functional, and patient-oriented outcome measures after ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 43:693–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biercevicz AM, Miranda DL, Machan JT, Murray MM, Fleming BC (2013) In Situ, noninvasive, T2*-weighted MRI-derived parameters predict ex vivo structural properties of an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction or bioenhanced primary repair in a porcine model. Am J Sports Med 41:560–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloem JL, Reijnierse M, Huizinga TWJ, van der Helm-van Mil AHM (2018) MR signal intensity: staying on the bright side in MR image interpretation. RMD Open 4:e000728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blumenkrantz G, Majumdar S (2007) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage in osteoarthritis. Eur Cell Mater 13:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen L, Wu Y, Lin G, Wei P, Ye Z, Wang Y et al (2018) Graft bending angle affects allograft tendon maturity early after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4910-x Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choi JA, Gold GE (2011) MR imaging of articular cartilage physiology. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 19:249–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Echigo J, Yoshioka H, Takahashi H, Niitsu M, Fukubayashi T, Itai Y (1999) Signal intensity changes in anterior cruciate ligament autografts: relation to magnetic field orientation. Acad Radiol 6:206–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falconiero RP, DiStefano VJ, Cook TM (1998) Revascularization and ligamentization of autogenous anterior cruciate ligament grafts in humans. Arthroscopy 14:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gohil S, Annear PO, Breidahl W (2007) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous double hamstrings: a comparison of standard versus minimal debridement techniques using MRI to assess revascularisation. A randomised prospective study with a one-year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89:1165–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hakozaki A, Niki Y, Enomoto H, Toyama Y, Suda Y (2015) Clinical significance of T2*-weighted gradient-echo MRI to monitor graft maturation over one year after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative study with proton density-weighted MRI. Knee 22:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Houck DA, Kraeutler MJ, Vidal AF, McCarty EC, Bravman JT, Wolcott ML et al (2018) Variance in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft selection based on patient demographics and location within the multicenter orthopaedic outcomes network cohort. J Knee Surg 31:472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Howell SM, Berns GS, Farley TE (1991) Unimpinged and impinged anterior cruciate ligament grafts: MR signal intensity measurements. Radiology 179:639–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hsu CJ, Hsu HC, Jim YF (2003) A radiological study after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Chin Med Assoc 66:160–165Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jackson DW, Grood ES, Goldstein JD, Rosen MA, Kurzweil PR, Cummings JF et al (1993) A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and allograft used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the goat model. Am J Sports Med 21:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Janssen RP, van der Wijk J, Fiedler A, Schmidt T, Sala HA, Scheffler SU (2011) Remodelling of human hamstring autografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1299–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee BI, Kim BM, Kho DH, Kwon SW, Kim HJ, Hwang HR (2016) Does the tibial remnant of the anterior cruciate ligament promote ligamentization? Knee 23:1133–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee S, Seong SC, Jo CH, Han HS, An JH, Lee MC (2007) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with use of autologous quadriceps tendon graft. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(Suppl 3):116–126Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li H, Chen J, Li H, Wu Z, Chen S (2017) MRI-based ACL graft maturity does not predict clinical and functional outcomes during the first year after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:3171–3178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li H, Chen S, Tao H, Li H, Chen S (2014) Correlation analysis of potential factors influencing graft maturity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2:2325967114553552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li H, Tao H, Cho S, Chen S, Yao Z, Chen S (2012) Difference in graft maturity of the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament 2 years postoperatively: a comparison between autografts and allografts in young men using clinical and 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. Am J Sports Med 40:1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li Q, Zhang Y, Zhan L, Han Q, Wu M, Zhang N (2019) Correlation analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-based graft maturity and outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using international knee documentation committee score. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 98:387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu S, Li H, Tao H, Sun Y, Chen S, Chen J (2018) A randomized clinical trial to evaluate attached hamstring anterior cruciate ligament graft maturity with magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med 46:1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malinin TI, Levitt RL, Bashore C, Temple HT, Mnaymneh W (2002) A study of retrieved allografts used to replace anterior cruciate ligaments. Arthroscopy 18:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Min BH, Chung WY, Cho JH (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging of reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Muramatsu K, Hachiya Y, Izawa H (2008) Serial evaluation of human anterior cruciate ligament grafts by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of allografts and autografts. Arthroscopy 24:1038–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rougraff B, Shelbourne KD, Gerth PK, Warner J (1993) Arthroscopic and histologic analysis of human patellar tendon autografts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 21:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rougraff BT, Shelbourne KD (1999) Early histologic appearance of human patellar tendon autografts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sanchez M, Anitua E, Azofra J, Prado R, Muruzabal F, Andia I (2010) Ligamentization of tendon grafts treated with an endogenous preparation rich in growth factors: gross morphology and histology. Arthroscopy 26:470–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scheffler SU, Schmidt T, Gangey I, Dustmann M, Unterhauser F, Weiler A (2008) Fresh-frozen free-tendon allografts versus autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: delayed remodeling and inferior mechanical function during long-term healing in sheep. Arthroscopy 24:448–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stöckle U, Hoffmann R, Schwedke J, Lubrich J, Vogl T, Südkamp NP et al (1998) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: the diagnostic value of MRI. Int Orthop 22:288–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takahashi T, Kimura M, Hagiwara K, Ohsawa T, Takeshita K (2018) The effect of remnant tissue preservation in anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction on knee stability and graft maturation. J Knee Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1660513 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tashiro Y, Gale T, Sundaram V, Nagai K, Irrgang JJ, Anderst W et al (2017) The graft bending angle can affect early graft healing after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. in vivo analysis with 2 years’ follow-up. Am J Sports Med 45:1829–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weiler A, Peters G, Maurer J, Unterhauser FN, Sudkamp NP (2001) Biomechanical properties and vascularity of an anterior cruciate ligament graft can be predicted by contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. A two-year study in sheep. Am J Sports Med 29:751–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zaffagnini S, De Pasquale V, Marchesini Reggiani L, Russo A, Agati P, Bacchelli B et al (2010) Electron microscopy of the remodelling process in hamstring tendon used as ACL graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1052–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zaffagnini S, De Pasquale V, Marchesini Reggiani L, Russo A, Agati P, Bacchelli B et al (2007) Neoligamentization process of BTPB used for ACL graft: histological evaluation from 6 months to 10 years. Knee 14:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical SciencesMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Physiology and Biomedical EngineeringMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  3. 3.School of Allied HealthLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  5. 5.Mayo Clinic Biomechanics Laboratories and Sports Medicine CenterMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  6. 6.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations