Partial tear of the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee: injury patterns on MR imaging.

PURPOSE: To describe rupture patterns of partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears on magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS: MR images of 51 patients with a surgically confirmed partial ACL tear were retrospectively and independently interpreted by 2 experienced, blinded radiologists. Using previously described MR criteria, ACLs were categorized as follows: complete tear, partial tear, isolated anteromedial or posterolateral bundle tear, mucoid degeneration or normal ACL. MR interpretations were compared with the arthroscopic results as the standard of reference. Inter- and intraobserver agreements were determined using kappa (к) coefficients. RESULTS: On MR imaging, ACL injuries were categorized as complete tears (16-23%), partial tears (20-47%), mucoid degeneration (12-27%) or normal ACLs (18-23%). Isolated ACL bundle tears were diagnosed on MR in 6% of our patients. Accuracy of MR for the diagnosis of partial ACL tears was 25-53%. Interobserver agreement was moderate (к = 0.48-0.56). Intraobserver agreement was good (к = 0.72-0.76). CONCLUSION: MR diagnosis of a partial ACL tear is difficult because various tear patterns may be seen. Many partial tears demonstrate MR features that are indistinguishable from complete ACL tear, mucoid ACL degeneration or normal ACL. An isolated ACL bundle tear is infrequently detected on MR images.

Experience with a frontal core biopsy device in soft tissue and bone lesions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and cost of a new frontloading biopsy system, Spirotome® (system 1), in musculoskeletal lesions, and to compare the results with those obtained with commonly used biopsy devices. METHODS: System 1 was used in all soft tissue lesions (STL) and osteolytic bone lesions (OBL) of patients who presented at our department for CT-guided biopsy between January 2009 and June 2010. Accuracy and cost were compared to those of Bonopty® (system 2) and Tru-cut (system 3) procedures. RESULTS: The efficacy of system 1 was 85% in STL and 89% in OBL. The procedure was well tolerated and caused no complications. System 3 had an efficacy of 84% in STL and OBL combined. The efficacy of system 2 in OBL was 85%. The cost of single-use system 1 and system 2 was comparable, the cost of system 3 and multiuse system 1 compared to single-use system 1 was 25 and 7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of system 1 in biopsy of STL and OBL was better than that of system 3. In OBL, the efficacy of system 1 was better than that of system 2. In STL at hazardous locations and small OBL with a thin cortical shell, system 1 offers the advantage of variable length and controlled loading. In these cases, single-use system 1 was cost-effective when compared to surgical biopsy. The cost per procedure of multiuse system 1 was lower than of system 3.