Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part I-diagnostics and preoperative planning.
Anterior cruciate ligament
Consensus
Failure
Revision
Surgery
Journal
Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA
ISSN: 1433-7347
Titre abrégé: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9314730
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
04
09
2022
accepted:
24
10
2022
pubmed:
3
11
2022
medline:
3
11
2022
entrez:
2
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in ACL revision. The European expert surgeons and scientists were divided into four groups to participate in this consensus. A "literature group" (four surgeons); "steering group" (14 surgeons and scientists); "rating group" (19 surgeons) and finally "peer review group" (51 representatives of the ESSKA-affiliated national societies from 27 countries). The steering group prepared eighteen question-answer sets. The quality of the answers received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientific support), to B (scientific presumption), C (low level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). These question-answer sets were then evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 to 9. The comments of the rating group were incorporated by the steering group and the consensus was submitted to the rating group a second time. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the question-answer sets were submitted to the peer review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to ratify the document. The literature review for the diagnosis and preoperative planning of ACL revision revealed a rather low scientific quality. None of the 18 questions was graded A and six received a grade B. The mean rating of all the questions by the rating group was 8.4 ± 0.3. The questions and recommendations are listed below. ACL revision surgery is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardisation. Therefore, this international consensus project is of great importance. II.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36322180
doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07214-w
pii: 10.1007/s00167-022-07214-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4642-4651Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
Références
Alm L, Krause M, Frosch KH, Akoto R (2020) Preoperative medial knee instability is an underestimated risk factor for failure of revision ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28(8):2458–2467
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-06133-y
pubmed: 32621041
pmcid: 7429520
Andra K, Kayaalp E, Prill R et al (2021) Joint effusion, anteroposterior stability, muscle strength and degree of patellofemoral osteoarthritis significantly impact outcome following revision ACL reconstruction. J Exp Orthop 8(1):70
doi: 10.1186/s40634-021-00370-x
pubmed: 34436684
pmcid: 8390615
Andra K, Prill R, Kayaalp E et al (2021) Increase in cartilage degeneration in all knee compartments after failed ACL reconstruction at 4 years of follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol 22(1):54
doi: 10.1186/s10195-021-00618-3
pubmed: 34914026
pmcid: 8677851
Beaufils P, Becker R, Kopf S et al (2017) Surgical management of degenerative meniscus lesions: the 2016 ESSKA meniscus consensus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(2):335–346
doi: 10.1007/s00167-016-4407-4
pubmed: 28210788
pmcid: 5331096
Dejour DH (2018) The role of a scientific society in the training and development of an orthopaedic surgeon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(11):3197–3198
doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5126-9
pubmed: 30267187
Feucht MJ, Cotic M, Saier T et al (2016) Patient expectations of primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(1):201–207
doi: 10.1007/s00167-014-3364-z
pubmed: 25274098
Grassi A, Kim C, MarcheggianiMuccioli GM et al (2017) What is the mid-term failure rate of revision acl reconstruction? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(10):2484–2499
doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5379-5
pubmed: 28493217
pmcid: 5599393
Grassi A, Macchiarola L, Urrizola Barrientos F et al (2019) Steep posterior tibial slope, anterior tibial subluxation, deep posterior lateral femoral condyle, and meniscal deficiency are common findings in multiple anterior cruciate ligament failures: an MRI case-control study. Am J Sports Med 47(2):285–295
doi: 10.1177/0363546518823544
pubmed: 30657705
Group M, Wright RW, Huston LJ et al (2021) Association between graft choice and 6-year outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the MARS cohort. Am J Sports Med 49(10):2589–2598
doi: 10.1177/03635465211027170
Jacquet C, Mouton C, Becker R et al (2021) Does practice of meniscus surgery change over time? A report of the 2021 ‘THE MENISCUS’ Webinar. J Exp Orthop 8(1):46
doi: 10.1186/s40634-021-00365-8
pubmed: 34173909
pmcid: 8236008
Jacquet C, Pujol N, Pauly V et al (2019) Analysis of the trends in arthroscopic meniscectomy and meniscus repair procedures in France from 2005 to 2017. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105(4):677–682
doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.01.024
pubmed: 31027979
Kopf S, Beaufils P, Hirschmann MT et al (2020) Management of traumatic meniscus tears: the 2019 ESSKA meniscus consensus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28(4):1177–1194
doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05847-3
pubmed: 32052121
pmcid: 7148286
Liechti DJ, Chahla J, Dean CS et al (2016) Outcomes and risk factors of rerevision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 32(10):2151–2159
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.04.017
pubmed: 27289278
Lutter C, Seil R, Best R et al (2021) Results of a tri-national online survey on the current status of sports injury prevention among members of the German-speaking orthopaedic sports medicine society (GOTS). Sportverletz Sportschaden 35(2):80–87
doi: 10.1055/a-1397-0710
pubmed: 33957676
Martin RK, Wastvedt S, Pareek A et al (2022) Predicting anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction revision: a machine learning analysis utilizing the Norwegian knee ligament register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 104(2):145–153
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00113
pubmed: 34662318
Marx JS, Plantz MA, Gerlach EB et al (2022) Revision ACL reconstruction has higher incidence of 30-day hospital readmission, reoperation, and surgical complications relative to primary procedures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30(5):1605–1610
doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06646-0
pubmed: 34279703
Santé HAd (2011) "Formal consensus" method. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_272505/en/-formal-consensus-method . Accessed 23 July 2022
Shekelle PG, Woolf SH, Eccles M, Grimshaw J (1999) Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines. BMJ 318(7183):593–596
doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7183.593
pubmed: 10037645
pmcid: 1115034
Tischer T, Condello V, Menetrey J et al (2022) Time to focus on ACL revision: ESSKA 2022 consensus. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-06950-3
doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-06950-3
pubmed: 36322180
pmcid: 10089991
Wright RW, Johnson L, Brophy RH et al (2019) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes at a minimum of 5-Year follow-up: a systematic review. J Knee Surg 32(3):218–221
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1641137
pubmed: 29653445