Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury can cause damage to the meniscus and articular cartilage, and may even lead to osteoarthritis. This study aimed to analyze the accuracy and feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging signs in the diagnosis of knee joint ACL injury.Methods: A total of 78 patients admitted to our hospital from June 2018 to October 2019 with highly suspected ACL injury were selected for this prospective study. We used MRI and arthroscopy to diagnose the ACL injuries, and the results of MRI and arthroscopy, as well as the value of MRI in diagnosing ACL injury, were compared.Results: Among the 78 participants, 66 cases were diagnosed with ACL injury (28 with complete tear, 38 with partial tear), and 12 were normal according to arthroscopy. Among the 66 cases with ACL injury, 63 (95.45%) were confirmed by MRI detection. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of ACL injury were 95.45% (63/66), 91.67%, and 94.87%, respectively. The accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of complete and partial tears were 92.86% and 94.74%, respectively. Among the four direct MRI signs of ACL injury, the differences in interruption of ACL continuity, thickening and edema, and abnormal walking were statistically significant (P<0.05). Among the 8 indirect MRI signs, all showed high specificity and low sensitivity, and which the specificity of posterior cruciate ligament index, Notch sign, meniscus exposure sign of posterior ankle, and lateral collateral ligament monolayer display showed higher specificity (P<0.05).Conclusions: Examination with MRI offers high accuracy in the diagnosis of ACL injury, and has good consistency with arthroscopic diagnosis, which can provide reliable guidance for the selection and formulation of clinical surgery plans, and might be used as the first choice for the non-traumatic diagnosis of ACL injury.

In order to improve the early diagnosis of ovarian cancer (OC), we evaluated human epididymis secretory protein 4 (HE4), the risk of malignancy index (RMI), the risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA), and the Copenhagen Index (CPH-I) in their ability to predict the risk of adnexal masses being malignant, and in discriminating between serous and mucinous ovarian tumors. Methods: A study consisting of 509 patients who were diagnosed with benign, borderline, and malignant adnexal tumors was conducted. We analyzed the values of HE4, RMI, ROMA, and CPH-I. In addition, CA125, CEA, CA125/CEA ratio, CA199, and CA125/CA199 ratio were also assessed to determine their predictive values to diagnoses serous or mucinous ovarian tumors. Results: To di ferentiate between benign and borderline ovarian tumors, we evaluated RMI and CPH-I scores which showed high AUC (0.7593, and 0.7128, respectively), but neither of them showed both high sensitivity and specificity. When discriminating benign and malignant tumors, RMI and CPH-I performed the best for premenopausal women; whereas ROMA and HE4 performed the best for postmenopausal women. Patients with values above the cuto f for CA125 (> 328.3 U/mL), CA125/CEA (> 82.26), and CA125/CA199 (> 5.633), were more likely to be diagnosed with serous carcinoma. Whereas those with higher values for CEA (> 3.7 µg/L) and CA199 (> 27.81 ng/mL) were more likely to have a mucinous carcinoma. Conclusion: RMI and CPH-I for premenopausal women, ROMA and RMI for postmenopausal women were reliable indicators to di ferentiate between women with benign versus malignant tumors. In addition, the ratios CA125/CEA and CA125/CA199 could be used to distinguish serous from mucinous ovarian carcinomas.