Intraobserver and Interobserver Agreement of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Reparability of Peripheral Meniscal Tears: What Criteria Really Matter?

Abstract

The objective of the study was the determination of the intra- and interobserver agreement of three magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) criteria for reparability: a peripheral rim smaller than 4 mm, a tear longer than 10 mm, and homogenous aspect of meniscal tissue. In two rounds with an interval of at least 6 weeks, three orthopedic surgeons and three musculoskeletal radiologists studied the preoperative MRI scans of 63 patients with a longitudinal full-thickness medial or lateral meniscal tear. All patients had an arthroscopic meniscal repair. The blinded images were evaluated measuring the tear length and rim width and meniscal aspect was classified. Agreement was calculated using the linear-weighted kappa coefficient (κ) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Examiner agreement strength was defined according to the guidelines of Landis and Koch. Intraobserver agreement was poor to good (κ, 0.12–0.72) for the classification of the meniscal aspect and decreased in lateral meniscal tears. The interobserver agreement for meniscal aspect was mainly poor to fair (κ, 0.09–0.53). The intraobserver reliability for measurement of the length of the meniscal tear was moderate to excellent (ICC, 0.51–0.80) for all observers in both rounds and moderate to good (ICC, 0.59–0.73) for measurement of the peripheral rim width. The interobserver agreement on tear length and rim width was moderate in both rounds (ICC, 0.58 and 0.50 in round 1; 0.50 and 0.50 in round 2, respectively). Tear length and rim width are the only two measurements with moderate to good agreement. However, these measurements do not predict reparability of longitudinal meniscal tears on MRI images.

Keywords

meniscus - reparability - MRI - meniscal repair

• References

• 1 Paxton ES, Stock MV, Brophy RH. Meniscal repair versus partial meniscectomy: a systematic review comparing reoperation rates and clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (9) 1275-1288
• 2 Stein T, Mehling AP, Welsch F, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Jäger A. Long-term outcome after arthroscopic meniscal repair versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for traumatic meniscal tears. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38 (8) 1542-1548
• 3 Matava MJ, Eck K, Totty W, Wright RW, Shively RA. Magnetic resonance imaging as a tool to predict meniscal reparability. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27 (4) 436-443
• 4 Oei EH, Nikken JJ, Verstijnen AC, Ginai AZ, Myriam Hunink MG. MR imaging of the menisci and cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Radiology 2003; 226 (3) 837-848
• 5 Thoreux P, Réty F, Nourissat G , et al. Bucket-handle meniscal lesions: magnetic resonance imaging criteria for reparability. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (9) 954-961
• 6 Nourissat G, Beaufils P, Charrois O , et al; French Society of Arthroscopy. Magnetic resonance imaging as a tool to predict reparability of longitudinal full-thickness meniscus lesions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008; 16 (5) 482-486
• 7 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86 (2) 420-428
• 8 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (1) 159-174
• 9 Liao JJ. Sample size calculation for an agreement study. Pharm Stat 2010; 9 (2) 125-132
• 10 Rosas HG, De Smet AA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the meniscus. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 20 (3) 151-173
• 11 De Smet AA, Mukherjee R. Clinical, MRI, and arthroscopic findings associated with failure to diagnose a lateral meniscal tear on knee MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (1) 22-26
• 12 Peterfy CG, Janzen DL, Tirman PF, van Dijke CF, Pollack M, Genant HK. “Magic-angle” phenomenon: a cause of increased signal in the normal lateral meniscus on short-TE MR images of the knee. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163 (1) 149-154
• 13 Nguyen JC, De Smet AA, Graf BK, Rosas HG. MR imaging-based diagnosis and classification of meniscal tears. Radiographics 2014; 34 (4) 981-999
• 14 Kijowski R, Rosas HG, Lee KS, Cheung A, Munoz del Rio A, Graf BK. MRI characteristics of healed and unhealed peripheral vertical meniscal tears. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (3) 585-592
• 15 Hamada M, Matsui T, Kinugasa K, Yoneda K, Horibe S, Shino K. Change of signal intensity in the displaced medial meniscus after its reduction on MRI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (3) 736-739
• 16 Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. Microvasculature of the human meniscus. Am J Sports Med 1982; 10 (2) 90-95
• 17 Wenger A, Wirth W, Hudelmaier M , et al. Meniscus body position, size, and shape in persons with and persons without radiographic knee osteoarthritis: quantitative analyses of knee magnetic resonance images from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65 (7) 1804-1811
• 18 Bernthal NM, Seeger LL, Motamedi K , et al. Can the reparability of meniscal tears be predicted with magnetic resonance imaging?. Am J Sports Med 2011; 39 (3) 506-510
• 19 Shiozaki Y, Horibe S, Mitsuoka T, Nakamura N, Toritsuka Y, Shino K. Prediction of reparability of isolated semilunar lateral meniscus tears by magnetic resonance imaging. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2002; 10 (4) 213-217
• 20 Peña E, Calvo B, Martinez MA, Palanca D, Doblaré M. Why lateral meniscectomy is more dangerous than medial meniscectomy. A finite element study. J Orthop Res 2006; 24 (5) 1001-1010
• 21 Grossman JW, De Smet AA, Shinki K. Comparison of the accuracy rates of 3-T and 1.5-T MRI of the knee in the diagnosis of meniscal tear. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193 (2) 509-514