Reliability of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Determining the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Location

Abstract

Background:

The accurate identification of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear location is important for preoperative planning, as it influences the choice between reconstruction or repair procedures, particularly for proximal tears. Therefore, there is a need for a reliable preoperative tool that yields findings consistent with diagnostic arthroscopy.

Purpose:

To evaluate the reliability of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for determination of the ACL tear location.

Study Design:

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

Patients diagnosed with a full-thickness ACL tear between January 2022 and January 2024 were included in this study. The modified Sherman classification was used to categorize the ACL tear location into 5 types: I (proximal avulsion tear), II (proximal tear), III (midsubstance tear), IV (distal tear), and V (distal avulsion tear). There were 2 musculoskeletal radiologists who reviewed preoperative MRI scans, whereas diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings were retrospectively reviewed by 2 orthopaedic surgeons. The MRI findings were then compared with the arthroscopic findings, with diagnostic arthroscopy serving as the reference standard for the exact tear location. The Fleiss kappa (κ) was used to assess the reliability of the MRI findings.

Results:

A total of 41 patients were included in this study. The rate of agreement between radiologists regarding the tear location based on preoperative MRI scans was 61.0% (25/41), while the rate of agreement between surgeons based on diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings was 87.8% (36/41). The interrater agreement between radiologists was moderate (κ = 0.460), whereas the interrater agreement between surgeons was excellent (κ = 0.833). The rate of agreement between radiologist 1 and surgeon 1 was 70.7% (29/41), and that between radiologist 1 and surgeon 2 was 75.6% (31/41). For radiologist 2, the rate of agreement was 75.6% (31/41) with both surgeon 1 and surgeon 2. The overall reliability analysis indicated good agreement (κ = 0.648) between the MRI and arthroscopic findings.

Conclusion:

Preoperative MRI reliably identified the tear location, with a good strength of agreement between preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy. Nevertheless, despite its reliability, the interrater agreement between radiologists in interpreting preoperative MRI scans was only moderate, whereas surgeons achieved excellent agreement based on diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament tear location magnetic resonance imaging diagnostic arthroscopy reliability

Primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has regained attention in recent years largely because of the advancements in modern surgical techniques and growing knowledge in regenerative medicine.^13,16,28 Evidence has suggested that when performed on patients with proximal tears, this procedure resulted in superior outcomes compared with ACL reconstruction.^5,27 Hence, it is crucial to reliably distinguish proximal tears. Precise identification would assist the surgeon in determining the potential reparability of the ACL and thus facilitate surgical planning.^8,29

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been demonstrated to be reliable in distinguishing between partial-thickness tears and full-thickness tears.^15,32 However, the reliability of MRI in identifying the exact tear location compared with diagnostic arthroscopy has not yet been established. To date, only 2 studies have evaluated the concordance between preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy, with both yielding conflicting results.^17,22 The limited number of studies on this issue is primarily caused by the relatively recent emergence of evidence supporting arthroscopic ACL repair as a viable option for select proximal tears.

Given that only proximal tears are amenable to ACL repair, accurate MRI that reflects findings observed through diagnostic arthroscopy is essential. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the reliability of preoperative MRI in determining the ACL tear location. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate the strength of agreement between radiologists and surgeons. We hypothesized that (1) MRI findings would be comparable with arthroscopic findings and (2) radiologists would demonstrate good interobserver agreement on tear location as assessed by preoperative MRI, whereas surgeons would demonstrate good interobserver agreement on tear location as assessed by diagnostic arthroscopy.

Methods

Study Design and Patient Selection

Study approval was obtained from the research ethics committee of our local hospital (No. 027/KEPK/IX/2024). This is a retrospective cohort study that included all patients diagnosed with a full-thickness ACL tear who underwent ACL reconstruction between January 2022 and January 2024. Patients aged <18 years, those with involvement of the posterior cruciate ligament, those with a duration from MRI to arthroscopy >3 months, and those with unavailable MRI scans were excluded from the study.

MRI Evaluation

All MRI scans were obtained with a 3.0-T scanner according to our hospital's standardized protocol. The sequences obtained consisted of T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and proton density–weighted images, with a slice thickness of 3, 3, and 1 mm, respectively. The MRI scans for each patient were reviewed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists, with each possessing over 5 years of experience in musculoskeletal imaging. Both radiologists determined the tear location from sagittal proton density–weighted images and categorized the tear location according to the modified Sherman classification⁴ (Figure 1). The classification system consists of 5 types of tears: type I, proximal avulsion tear (>90% remaining distal remnant length); type II, proximal tear (75%-90% remaining distal remnant length); type III, midsubstance tear (25%-75% remaining distal remnant length); type IV, distal tear (10%-25% remaining distal remnant length); and type V, distal avulsion tear (<10% remaining distal remnant length).

Figure 1.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear location according to the modified Sherman classification system. (A) Healthy ACL seen on a sagittal proton density–weighted image. (B) Type I: proximal avulsion tear. (C) Type II: proximal tear. (D) Type III: midsubstance tear. (E) Type IV: distal tear. (F) Type V: distal avulsion tear.

Arthroscopic Assessment

Diagnostic arthroscopy was used as the reference standard for identifying the exact tear location. There were 2 orthopaedic surgeons who retrospectively reviewed the intraoperative arthroscopic videos in a blinded manner. Tear location was determined based on the amount of remaining femoral and tibial remnants, with tears subsequently categorized according to the modified Sherman classification. The surgeons’ assessments of the tear location were then compared with the radiologists’ interpretation of the preoperative MRI scans.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 26.0; IBM). Numerical data were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical data were presented as number and percentage. Interrater agreement between radiologists, between surgeons, and between radiologists and surgeons was assessed using the Fleiss kappa (κ). The strength of agreement was interpreted according to the guidelines of Landis and Koch¹⁴: poor (κ < 0.00), slight (κ = 0.00-0.20), fair (κ = 0.21-0.40), moderate (κ = 0.41-0.60), good (κ = 0.61-0.80), and excellent (κ = 0.81-1.00).

Results

Patient Characteristics

Between January 2022 and January 2024, a total of 56 patients diagnosed with full-thickness ACL tears underwent ACL reconstruction at our institution. However, 2 patients were excluded because of posterior cruciate ligament involvement, 3 were aged <18 years, 6 had an interval from MRI to arthroscopy >3 months, and 4 had an unavailability of MRI scans. Overall, 41 patients were included in the final analysis (Figure 2). The mean age of the patients was 30.2 ± 9.9 years, with 33 being male (80.5%). Regarding the cause of the injuries, 28 were sports-related injuries (68.3%), 12 were recreational injuries (29.3%), and 1 was a motor vehicle accident–related injury (2.4%). The mean interval from injury to MRI was 36.0 ± 53.3 days, while the mean interval from MRI to reconstruction was 15.7 ± 15.5 days.

Figure 2.

Characteristics of patients included in this study.

Distribution of Tear Location

Details regarding the distribution of ACL tear locations based on preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy can be seen in Table 1. The rate of agreement between the radiologists was 61.0% (25/41), while the rate of agreement between the surgeons was 87.8% (36/41).

Table 1

Distribution of Tear Location ^a

	Modified Sherman Classification
	Type I	Type II	Type III	Type IV	Type V
Preoperative MRI
Radiologist 1	8 (19.5)	14 (34.1)	11 (26.8)	7 (17.1)	1 (2.4)
Radiologist 2	7 (17.1)	19 (46.3)	10 (24.4)	3 (7.3)	2 (4.9)
Diagnostic arthroscopy
Surgeon 1	9 (22.0)	15 (36.6)	10 (24.4)	6 (14.6)	1 (2.4)
Surgeon 2	7 (17.1)	17 (41.5)	10 (24.4)	5 (12.2)	2 (4.9)

Data are presented as n (%). MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

Agreement on Tear Location Between Raters

Details regarding agreement on the tear location between radiologists, between surgeons, and between radiologists and surgeons can be seen in Table 2. Based on preoperative MRI scans, radiologists exhibited moderate agreement (κ = 0.460) in the tear location. Meanwhile, based on diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings, surgeons exhibited excellent agreement (κ = 0.833). The rate of agreement between radiologist 1 and surgeon 1 was 70.7% (29/41), while that between radiologist 1 and surgeon 2 was 75.6% (31/41). In comparison, the rate of agreement between radiologist 2 and surgeon 1 was 75.6% (31/41), while that between radiologist 2 and surgeon 2 was 75.6% (31/41). The overall reliability analysis demonstrated good agreement (κ = 0.648) in the tear location between the preoperative MRI scans assessed by radiologists and the diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings assessed by surgeons.

Table 2

Agreement on Tear Location Between Raters ^a

	κ (95% CI)	Agreement
Preoperative MRI (radiologist 1 and radiologist 2)	0.460 (0.283-0.637)	Moderate
Diagnostic arthroscopy (surgeon 1 and surgeon 2)	0.833 (0.658-1.008)	Excellent
Preoperative MRI vs diagnostic arthroscopy
Radiologist 1 and surgeon 1	0.605 (0.430-0.780)	Good
Radiologist 1 and surgeon 2	0.668 (0.494-0.842)	Good
Radiologist 2 and surgeon 1	0.660 (0.482-0.838)	Good
Radiologist 2 and surgeon 2	0.655 (0.477-0.833)	Good
Overall (radiologist 1, radiologist 2, surgeon 1, and surgeon 2)	0.648 (0.576-0.719)	Good

MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

Agreement on Tear Location According to Modified Sherman Classification

The reliability analysis of preoperative MRI in identifying the tear location based on the modified Sherman classification is detailed in Table 3. The strength of agreement was found to be good for type I through type V tears.

Table 3

Agreement on Tear Location According to Modified Sherman Classification (Preoperative MRI) ^a

	κ (95% CI)	Agreement
Type I	0.669 (0.544-0.793)	Good
Type II	0.635 (0.510-0.760)	Good
Type III	0.664 (0.539-0.789)	Good
Type IV	0.618 (0.493-0.743)	Good
Type V	0.654 (0.529-0.779)	Good

MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

Discussion

The main finding of this study was that there was good agreement between preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy. For interrater agreement, the radiologists shared moderate agreement on the tear location as assessed from preoperative MRI scans, whereas the surgeons shared excellent agreement on the tear location as assessed from diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings.

Sherman et al²¹ were the first to introduce a classification system for ACL tear location, which was originally developed to categorize intraoperative findings on tear location during open ACL repair. However, midterm follow-up studies have revealed a high rate of reruptures associated with the open repair procedure.^7,9 Consequently, open ACL repair and the original classification system have since been abandoned. In recent years, advances in surgical techniques, along with several reports of successful proximal repair^6,8,31 and the healing augmentation potential offered by biological agents,^11,23,30 have renewed interest in arthroscopic repair for proximal tears. The proximal region's abundant vascular supply has been described as a key factor in facilitating the intrinsic healing process after ACL repair.^2,28 This has been demonstrated in a histological study by Nguyen et al,¹⁹ which revealed that repaired proximal remnants exhibited signs of healing, including increased collagen fiber density, neovascularization, myofibroblast activity, type III collagen deposition, and metabolic activity.

To improve the previous intraoperative classification system consisting of 4 tear types, van der List et al²⁶ introduced the modified Sherman classification, which consists of 5 tear types and was designed to facilitate the preoperative identification of the tear location. This 5-type classification has been shown to produce good intraobserver (κ = 0.781) and interobserver (κ = 0.671) agreement among radiologists. Using this modified system, Mehier et al¹⁷ evaluated the agreement between preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy. Their study demonstrated that MRI reliably determines the tear location, with an accuracy of 70%. The strength of agreement between preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy was revealed to be good. Additionally, the interrater reliability of MRI findings by radiologists was also found to be good. The results in the present study are mostly consistent with their reported results, except that we observed only moderate interrater agreement (κ = 0.460) between the radiologists based on preoperative MRI. We documented that the radiologists exhibited a lower agreement rate (61.0%) from preoperative MRI while surgeons demonstrated a higher agreement rate (87.8%) from diagnostic arthroscopy. The inconsistency observed in the present study highlights the observer-dependent nature of MRI interpretation, which could be influenced by individual experience or judgment. In addition, the presence of sagging remnants or spiral tear patterns could hinder the tear location assessment.²⁶ Therefore, because of the subjective variability in MRI interpretation, the final confirmation of the tear location should ultimately be established through diagnostic arthroscopy.

Interestingly, although our findings and those of Mehier et al¹⁷ revealed good agreement between preoperative MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy, Shu et al²² reported contradictory results. Their study demonstrated poor agreement between MRI and intraoperative arthroscopic findings, with the rate of agreement on the tear location as low as 2.9%. However, upon observation of their study methodology, we hypothesize that this low agreement is likely attributable to the study's inclusion criteria in which partial rupture cases were included, as 20 of 34 patients had a partial-thickness tear. Generally, the modified Sherman classification is supposed to be strictly used to categorize full-thickness tears.^4,26 Hence, an attempt to determine the tear location in partial-thickness tear cases may lead to inaccurate findings. This reasoning also applies to ACL repair, as this procedure is only performed among patients with a full-thickness tear.^12,18

In addition to tear location, the quality of the remnant has also emerged as a crucial factor in determining the reparability of the ACL.¹ A poor-quality remnant that has undergone hypoplastic changes and has an insufficient length is often difficult to reattach to its original footprint, making it unsuitable for repair. Therefore, repair procedures should only be considered in cases of proximal tears with a sufficient distal remnant length and adequate remnant quality.²⁴ Remnant quality may be affected by several factors, including age, sex, tear chronicity, and associated intra-articular abnormalities such as meniscal or chondral lesions.^3,20 Among these, the chronicity of the tear is the most critical one. The longer the interval between the initial injury and surgical repair, the greater the likelihood that retraction and shortening of the remnant will occur. Therefore, repair is generally advocated only during the acute and subacute phases (within 1 week to 3 months after the initial injury).^5,10,25

Several limitations of the current study need to be noted. First, the retrospective design of this study could introduce selection bias. Second, as it is a single-center study, the sample size was relatively small. Third, there may have been bias in MRI interpretation by the observers, as the findings strongly depended on their level of experience. Fourth, the determination of the tear location by the surgeons was conducted retrospectively from patients’ arthroscopic video recordings, which may have resulted in less accurate findings compared with direct intraoperative evaluations. Lastly, reliability tests for ACL tissue quality were not performed. The reliability of MRI in assessing tissue quality should ideally be validated against cases that undergo actual repair. However, because of the limited number of repair procedures performed at our institution, this analysis could not be carried out. Therefore, further prospective studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of MRI in identifying both tear location and remnant tissue quality.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that preoperative MRI was reliable in determining the tear location, showing good agreement with findings from diagnostic arthroscopy. However, although appearing to be reliable, the interrater agreement between radiologists in interpreting preoperative MRI scans was only moderate, while surgeons demonstrated excellent agreement in evaluating diagnostic arthroscopic video recordings. For this reason, the final determination of the tear location should be confirmed directly during diagnostic arthroscopy.

Footnotes

Final revision submitted June 29, 2025; accepted July 16, 2025.

The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from St Borromeus Hospital (No. 027/KEPK/IX/2024).

ORCID iDs

Andre Yanuar

Calvin Calvin

Ghuna Arioharjo Utoyo

References

Anderson

Wright

Anderson

Alexander

Popa

Ahmad

CS.

Inter- and intraobserver reliability between orthopaedic surgeons for reparability of the anterior cruciate ligament using MRI. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(11):2325967120964608.

Bottoni

Gee

MSM

Peterson

CDR

Zhou

ML.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair: historical perspective, indications, techniques, and outcomes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(23):963-971.

Carrozzo

Lahsika

Lattermann

, et al. Factors influencing the amount of ACL remnant available for preservation at the time of ACL surgery: an analysis of 5725 knees from the SANTI Study Group database. Orthop J Sports Med. 2024;12(12):23259671241298943.

Daniels

van der List

Kazam

DiFelice

GS.

Arthroscopic primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament: what the radiologist needs to know. Skeletal Radiol. 2018;47(5):619-629.

DiFelice

van der List

JP.

Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears. Arthrosc Tech. 2016;5(5):e1057-e1061.

Douoguih

Zade

Bodendorfer

Siddiqui

Lincoln

AE.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture augmentation for proximal avulsion injuries. Arthrosc Sport Med Rehabil. 2020;2(5):e475-e480.

Feagin

Curl

WW.

Isolated tear of the anterior cruciate ligament: five-year follow-up study. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1990;12(6):232-235.

Gao

Wang

Suture anchor technique for bridge enhanced anterior cruciate ligament restoration. Arthrosc Tech. 2024;13(3):102880.

Grøntvedt

Engebretsen

Benum

Fasting

Mølster

Strand

A prospective, randomized study of three operations for acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: five-year follow-up of one hundred and thirty-one patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(2):159-168.

10.

Jonkergouw

van der List

DiFelice

GS.

Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: outcomes of the first 56 consecutive patients and the role of additional internal bracing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27(1):21-28.

11.

Kantrowitz

Darden

Haunschild

Gladstone

Anthony

SG.

Modified bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair. Arthrosc Tech. 2024;13(9):103034.

12.

Kayaalp

Sürücü

Çerçi

Aydın

Mahiroğulları

Anterior cruciate ligament repair using dynamic intraligamentary stabilization provides a similarly successful outcome as all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a faster psychological recovery in moderately active patients. Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2022;33(2):406-413.

13.

Kon

Di Matteo

Altomare

, et al. Biologic agents to optimize outcomes following ACL repair and reconstruction: a systematic review of clinical evidence. J Orthop Res. 2022;40(1):10-28.

14.

Landis

Koch

GG.

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.

15.

Huang

Liu

Yang

HL.

The diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for anterior cruciate ligament injury in comparison to arthroscopy: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1-10.

16.

Mansour

Ghanimeh

Ghoul

Estephan

Khoury

Daher

Bridge enhanced

ACL

repair

vs.

ACL reconstruction for ACL tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. SICOT J. 2023;9:8.

17.

Mehier

Ract

Metten

Najihi

Guillin

Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: magnetic resonance imaging characterisation of reparable lesions and correlation with arthroscopy. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(1):582-592.

18.

Murray

Fleming

Badger

, et al. Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair is not inferior to autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at 2 years: results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(6):1305-1315.

19.

Nguyen

Ramwadhdoebe

Van Der Hart

Blankevoort

Tak

Van Dijk

CN.

Intrinsic healing response of the human anterior cruciate ligament: an histological study of reattached ACL remnants. J Orthop Res. 2014;32(2):296-301.

20.

Rilk

Goodhart

van der List

, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament primary repair revision rates are increased in skeletally mature patients under the age of 21 compared to reconstruction, while adults (>21 years) show no significant difference: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2025;33(1):29-58.

21.

Sherman

Lieber

Bonamo

Podesta

Reiter

The long-term followup of primary anterior cruciate ligament repair. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19(3):243-255.

22.

Shu

Wegener

Connors

, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting anterior cruciate ligament tear location and tear degree. J Orthop. 2021;25:129-133.

23.

Uchida

Jacob

Shimomura

Horibe

Nakamura

Biological augmentation of ACL repair and reconstruction: current status and future perspective. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2020;28(2):49-55.

24.

Utoyo

Hidayat

Rahim

, et al. Arthroscopic repair for acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture results in higher failure rates and greater residual knee laxity compared to reconstruction if performed more than 3 weeks after injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Published online June 5, 2025. doi:10.1002/ksa.12715

25.

van der List

DiFelice

GS.

Successful arthroscopic primary repair of a chronic anterior cruciate ligament tear 11 years following injury. HSS J. 2017;13(1):90-95.

26.

van der List

Mintz

DiFelice

GS.

The location of anterior cruciate ligament tears: a prevalence study using magnetic resonance imaging. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(6):2325967117709966.

27.

van der List

Vermeijden

Sierevelt

DiFelice

van Noort

Kerkhoffs

GMMJ.

Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears seems safe but higher level of evidence is needed: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(6):1946-1957.

28.

Vermeijden

Monaco

Marzilli

, et al. Primary repair versus reconstruction in patients with bilateral anterior cruciate ligament injuries: what do patients prefer? Adv Orthop. 2022;2022:3558311.

29.

Vermeijden

van der List

DiFelice

GS.

Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears with suture augmentation. Video J Sports Med. 2021;1(3):263502542110054.

30.

Yanuar

Agustina

Budhiparama

Atik

Prospect of exosome in ligament healing: a systematical review. Stem Cells Cloning. 2023;16:91-101.

31.

Youssefzadeh

Stein

Limpisvasti

Anterior cruciate ligament repair using a knotless suture implant. Arthrosc Tech. 2020;9(5):e623-e626.

32.

Zhao

Zhou

Chang

, et al. The accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(24):1657-1657.