Introduction and Aims: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries have historically been classified as non-contact or contact based on the mechanism of injury. The purpose of this study was to establish a detailed correlation between mechanism and the associated osteochondral, meniscal and other injuries to improve understanding of this common injury and its outcome.

Method: A descriptive analysis of prospectively collected data on ACL injuries requiring reconstruction between 2000 and 2004 was completed. Mechanism of injury was clearly elicited and correlated with clinical, radiologic and operative findings. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed on all patients to analyse patterns of ACL rupture and associated osteochondral, meniscal and ligament injuries. Osteochondral injuries were analysed by a musculoskeletal radiologist according to location, intensity and depth. Intra-operative documentation of intra-articular injury pattern was also performed and correlated with MRI findings. Classification into ‘active’ (non-contact) and ‘passive’ (contact) mechanisms was completed and correlated with injury pattern.

Results: Seventy patients were identified with appropriate clinical, radiologic and operative data. A thorough review of the events surrounding the injury was documented. Forty-six patients described an active mechanism and 24 patients a passive mechanism of injury. Clinical examination demonstrated a similar proportion of medial collateral ligament injuries in each group. MRI within three months of injury demonstrated occult osteochondral lesions or ‘bone bruises’ in the majority of patients. Clear distinguishing patterns of femoral and tibial osteochondral injury were identified in the active and passive groups. Depth of osteochondral injury was most commonly classified as at least two-thirds the distance to the physeal scar in both groups. Intensity of the abnormal edema-like signal in the marrow of the distal femur and proximal tibia was most commonly classified as severe in both groups. Lateral meniscus injury was more common than medial, and was found in the majority of patients, more commonly in the passive group.

Conclusion: Although surgical techniques continue to improve, the ACL injury mechanism and its relation to intra-articular pathology is less well defined. This study defines either ‘active’ or ‘passive’ mechanisms, with implications for likely associated osteochondral and meniscal injury. This gives valuable insight into the ACL injured knee, its management, and eventual prognosis.