Increased Intra-Articular Internal Tibial Rotation Is Associated With Unstable Medial Meniscus Ramp Lesions in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Injured Athletes

Purpose: To analyze internal tibial rotation through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries with and without an unstable medial meniscal ramp lesion (MMRL). Methods: Retrospective analysis of prospectively data was performed to include all consecutive patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) between January 2022 and June 2022. Two groups, ACLR + unstable MMRL and ACLR without MMRL, were constituted. Propensity score matching analysis was used to limit selection bias. The angle between surgical epicondylar axes (SEAs) and the tangent line of the posterior tibial condyles (PTCs) was measured to analyze the rotational alignment between distal femur and proximal tibia. MMRLs were defined unstable if they were ≥1 cm, if the lesions extend beyond the lower pole of the femoral condyle, and/or if there was displacement into the medial compartment by anterior probing. Results: Twenty-eight propensity-matched pairs were included. The ACLR + unstable MMRL presented a significantly greater internal rotation of the tibia compared to ACLR without MMRL (P < .001). An internal tibial rotation was associated with unstable ramp lesions in ACL-injured patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.41; P < .0001). If SEA-PTC was 0°, the sensitivity and specificity of the SEA-PTC angle to detect unstable MMRL were respectively 100% (95% CI, 85%-100%) and 18% (95% CI, 8%-36%). Otherwise, if SEA-PTC angle was -10°, the sensitivity and specificity of the SEA-PTC angle to detect unstable MMRL were respectively 43% (95% CI, 27%-61%) and 96% (95% CI, 81%-100%). Bone edema of the posterior medial tibial plateau was significantly associated with unstable ramp lesions (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.06; P = .029). Conclusions: Unstable MMRL concomitant to an ACL rupture was associated with an increased tibial internal rotation. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative trial.