After hospital institutional review board approval was obtained, the medical records of patients treated in our hospital between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Eligible patients in our study were required to have computed tomography (CT) data for the injured knee. The patients were divided into two groups: (1) patients with a noncontact ACL injury and (2) patients who had a fracture of the tibial plateau resulting from a violent injury (control group). To be included in the study as a case in the ACL injury group, patients were confirmed via clinical examination, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and arthroscopic visualization at the time of ACL reconstruction by two experienced orthopaedic surgeons. A noncontact ACL injury was defined as an event not occurring due to direct contact between the ACL-injured knee and the ground, another athlete, or other object.
Our inclusion criteria were as follows: noncontact ACL injury or fracture of the tibial plateau, CT scan for the injured knee, age 18 to 45 years and 18 < body mass index (BMI) < 45 kg/m². Our exclusion criteria were as follows: dysplasia of the knee joint, evidence of osteoarthritis, prior knee injury, inadequate CT images (such as CT scans without intact femoral condyles). The patients were classified according to noncontact ACL injury and fracture of the tibial plateau. Subjects were excluded from the ACL injury group if they had additional ligamentous injury (medial collateral ligament, lateral collateral ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, and medial patellofemoral ligament). After the medical records were reviewed for eligibility, 74 noncontact ACL-injured cases (34 females, 40 males) were identified from the Department of Orthopaedics in our hospital. The control data were obtained from patients treated in the trauma centre of our hospital and matched to ACL-injured patients by age and sex. Subjects were excluded from the control group if they had a prior ligament injury (medial collateral ligament, lateral collateral ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, and medial patellofemoral ligament). The control group was composed of 74 individuals (34 females, 40 males). Informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study. Figure 1 shows the flow diagram of patient enrolment in the study.
Table 1
| ACL Injury | Control Group | P values |
Age, y | 29.0±8.9 | 30.4±7.8 | 0.235 |
Height, cm | 172.7±7.9 | 171.8±7.0 | 0.597 |
Weight, kg | 70.7±11.3 | 69.3±10.5 | 0.448 |
BMI | 23.6±2.4 | 23.4±2.5 | 0.593 |
Sex, male/female | 40/34 | 40/34 | |
The date of Age, Height, Weight, and BMI were given as the mean and standard deviation. Mann-Whitney U Test was performed to determine if there was a difference between two groups for the Age, Height, Weight, and BMI; |
Three-dimensional model reconstruction and measurement methods |
CT scanning was performed by using a 64 CT scanner (Somatom Sensation 64, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with the knee in extension after the surgery to evaluate the surgical outcomes. To obtain an accurate sagittal view, a three-dimensional model of the distal femur was created with Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) CT images, which were obtained by using the image processing software Mimics (21.0 Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The threshold of all cases was set at 226 HU, and the femoral mask was automatically separated using the “Region Grow” function. The three-dimensional model of the femur was reconstructed using the “Calculate Part” function, and the optimal quality was chosen. Then, three-dimensional rotation was performed on the femoral model using the “Pan” and “Rotate” functions for accurate realignment. In order to get the nonorthogonal, sagittal imaging plane, the rotation of the femoral three-dimensional model was as Howell et al described [17]. This was defined as the sagittal imaging plane of the distal femur. The sagittal imaging plane of the medial distal femur was considered to be plane a, and the sagittal imaging plane of the lateral distal femur was considered to be plane b. |
Measurements of the lateral femoral posterior radius (LFPR), medial femoral posterior radius (MFPR), lateral height of the distal femur (LH), medial height of the distal femur (MH), lateral femoral anteroposterior diameter (LFAP), and medial femoral anteroposterior diameter (MFAP) for both study groups were performed on a sagittal view image by two independent blinded observers. Two circles were centred on the femoral shaft to determine the long axis of the distal femur. A line passing through the centre of both circles was considered the long axis of the distal femoral shaft. The LFPR and MFPR were determined using a circle-fitting technique in which the femoral condyle was assumed to have a single radius of curvature in flexion from 10° to 160° as described [16, 17, 21]. The line crossing the centre of the femoral posterior circle and perpendicular to the axis of the distal femoral shaft was used to determine the LFAP and MFAP. The distance from the intersection of those lines to the distal femoral condyle was used to determine the LH and MH. The LFPR was divided by the LFAP and multiplied by 100%, and this ratio was defined as the lateral femoral posterior radius ratio (LFPRR). The MFPR was divided by the MFAP and multiplied by 100%, and this ratio was defined as the medial femoral posterior radius ratio (MFPRR) (Figure 2). |
The interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were calculated by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To determine intraobserver reliability, all the patients remeasured > 1 week after the initial measurements by the first blinded observer. To determine interobserver reliability, one other blinded and independent observer repeated all the same measurements. |
Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS software (24, IBM, Chicago, USA). The mean, standard deviation, range and frequency were calculated for continuous variables and percentages. The ICC was calculated to ensure interobserver and intraobserver reliability. According to the normality of the measurements, the Mann-Whitney U test and 2-sample t test were performed to detect significant differences in all continuous variables, including age, height, weight, BMI, LFPR, MFPR, LH, MH, LFAP, MFAP, LFPRR, and MFPRR, between the ACL-injured group and the control group. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated to determine whether an increased LFPRR and increased MFPRR were risk factors for noncontact ACL injury. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the association between LFPRR and ACL injury and the association between MFPRR and ACL injury. The cut-off was determined at the maximal Youden index with autofit sensitivity and specificity.
Power analysis was performed using G*Power (3.1.9.2, Kiel, Germany) to determine the sample size. According to the preliminary results, to achieve a power of 0.95, a total of 126 patients (63 per group) needed to be included in this study; this calculation assumed an effect size of 0.65, a power of 0.95, and independent t test.