Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2024; 59(05): e702-e706
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1791791
Artigo Original
Joelho

Meniscal Ramp Injury Diagnosis

Article in several languages: português | English
1   Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
1   Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
1   Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
1   Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
1   Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
1   Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
› Author Affiliations


Financial support The authors declare that this research did not receive any grant from financial agencies from the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sources.
Preview

Abstract

Objective: This study compared diagnostic methods for meniscal ramp injury (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], arthrotomography, and arthroscopy) to determine the most sensitive and the agreement level between them.

Method: We studied 21 patients, all young athletes with suspected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after trauma for at least 3 months and no evidence or history of other osteoarticular injuries in the knee. The patients underwent MRI and arthrotomography. Following ACL injury confirmation, they underwent arthroscopy for ligament reconstruction and evaluation of the medial meniscus to confirm or exclude a ramp injury. McNemar's agreement test compared the diagnostic methods. We also assessed specificity and sensitivity using arthroscopy as the gold standard with a 95% confidence interval and p < 0.005.

Result: The results were consistent with the literature. MRI had 73.3% sensitivity and 83.3% specificity, with 76.2% agreement with the gold standard. Arthrotomography sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 66.7%, respectively, with 90.5% agreement with arthroscopy.

Conclusion: In our study, arthrotomography was the most sensitive diagnostic method and had the highest agreement with the gold standard. We recommend its consideration for diagnosing ACL injuries.

Work carried out at the Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 30 May 2022

Accepted: 06 November 2023

Article published online:
07 December 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil