| 1. |
- Diermeier, Theresa, et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - 2325-9671. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best-practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus nonoperative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. There were 66 international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, who were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the scientific organizing committee and session chairs for the 3 working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements before the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Ultimately, 80% agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Overall, 9 statements achieved unanimous support, 2 reached strong consensus, 1 did not achieve consensus, and 1 was removed because of redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended because of the high risk of secondary meniscal and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight-plane activities, nonoperative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lian, Jayson, et al.
(författare)
-
Rotatory Knee Laxity Exists on a Continuum in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. - 1535-1386. ; 102:3, s. 213-220
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The purpose of this investigation was to compare the magnitude of rotatory knee laxity in patients with a partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear, those with a complete ACL tear, and those who had undergone a failed ACL reconstruction. It was hypothesized that rotatory knee laxity would increase with increasing injury grade, with knees with partial ACL tears demonstrating the lowest rotatory laxity and knees that had undergone failed ACL reconstruction demonstrating the highest rotatory laxity.A prospective multicenter study cohort of 354 patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction between 2012 and 2018 was examined. All patients had both injured and contralateral healthy knees evaluated using standardized, preoperative quantitative pivot shift testing, determined by a validated, image-based tablet software application and a surface-mounted accelerometer. Quantitative pivot shift was compared with the contralateral healthy knee in 20 patients with partial ACL tears, 257 patients with complete ACL tears, and 27 patients who had undergone a failed ACL reconstruction. Comparisons were made using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc 2-sample t tests with Bonferroni correction. Significance was set at p < 0.05.There were stepwise increases in side-to-side differences in quantitative pivot shift in terms of lateral knee compartment translation for patients with partial ACL tears (mean [and standard deviation], 1.4 ± 1.5 mm), those with complete ACL tears (2.5 ± 2.1 mm), and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (3.3 ± 1.9 mm) (p = 0.01) and increases in terms of lateral compartment acceleration for patients with partial ACL tears (0.7 ± 1.4 m/s), those with complete ACL tears (2.3 ± 3.1 m/s), and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (2.4 ± 5.5 m/s) (p = 0.01). A significant difference in lateral knee compartment translation was found when comparing patients with partial ACL tears and those with complete ACL tears (1.2 ± 2.1 mm [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.2 to 2.1 mm]; p = 0.02) and patients with partial ACL tears and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (1.9 ± 1.7 mm [95% CI, 0.8 to 2.9 mm]; p = 0.001), but not when comparing patients with complete ACL tears and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (0.8 ± 2.1 [95% CI, -0.1 to 1.6 mm]; p = 0.09). Increased lateral compartment acceleration was found when comparing patients with partial ACL tears and those with complete ACL tears (1.5 ± 3.0 m/s [95% CI, 0.8 to 2.3 m/s]; p = 0.0002), but not when comparing patients with complete ACL tears and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (0.1 ± 3.4 m/s [95% CI, -2.2 to 2.4 m/s]; p = 0.93) or patients with partial ACL tears and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (1.7 ± 4.2 m/s [95% CI, -0.7 to 4.0 m/s]; p = 0.16). An increasing lateral compartment translation of the contralateral, ACL-healthy knee was found in patients with partial ACL tears (0.8 mm), those with complete ACL tears (1.2 mm), and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction (1.7 mm) (p < 0.05).A progressive increase in rotatory knee laxity, defined by side-to-side differences in quantitative pivot shift, was observed in patients with partial ACL tears, those with complete ACL tears, and those who had undergone failed ACL reconstruction. These results may be helpful when assessing outcomes and considering indications for the management of high-grade rotatory knee laxity.Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
|
|
| 3. |
- Meredith, Sean J., et al.
(författare)
-
Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - : SAGE Publications. - 2325-9671. ; 8:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: A precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sport and their previous activity level. Purpose: The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and a description of the RTS continuum as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence. Results: Key points include that RTS is characterized by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS and, ultimately, return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum, with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors, and concomitant injuries. Conclusion: The resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing, and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery.
|
|
| 4. |
- Svantesson, Eleonor, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. - 2325-9671. ; 8:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect of establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. To establish a standardized assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in June 2019. The aim was to establish a consensus on what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used, and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. The group reached consensus on 9 statements by using a modified Delphi method. In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into 4 robust categories: early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment after ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained reinjuries, validated knee-specific PROs, and health-related quality of life questionnaires. In the midterm to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.
|
|
| 5. |
- Svantesson, Eleonor, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injuryclinical outcomes consensus group.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1433-7347. ; 28:8, s. 2415-2434
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed.To establish a standardized approach to assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA; USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method.In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories-early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific PROs and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid- to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated.This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.V.
|
|
