| 1. |
- Diermeier, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0942-2056 .- 1433-7347. ; 28, s. 2390-2402
-
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 vs. non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study is to report the consensus statements on operative vs. non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, 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 three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided the initial agreement and comments on the statement via an online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty percent agreement was defined a-priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative v. non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached the consensus during the Symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support, two reached strong consensus, one did not achieve consensus, and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus 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, non-operative 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 non-operative treatments with patients after an ACL injury. Level of evidence V. © 2020, European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
|
|
| 2. |
- Diermeier, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Isakos Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 2059-7754. ; 6:3, s. 129-137
-
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 towards consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organising Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to 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. Eighty per cent agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative veresus non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support; two reached strong consensus; one did not achieve consensus; and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting and pivoting sports, early anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus 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, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomical ACLR is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatment with patients after an ACL injury. Level of evidence: V
|
|
| 3. |
- Alentorn-Geli, E., et al.
(författare)
-
The Association of Recreational and Competitive Running With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. - : Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT). - 0190-6011 .- 1938-1344. ; 47:6, s. 373-390
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Running is a healthy and popular activity worldwide, but data regarding its association with osteoarthritis (OA) are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of hip and knee OA with running and to explore the influence of running intensity on this association. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were used to identify studies investigating the occurrence of OA of the hip and/or knee among runners. A meta-analysis of studies comparing this occurrence between runners and controls (sedentary, nonrunning individuals) was conducted. Runners were regarded as "competitive" if they were reported as professional/elite athletes or participated in international competitions. Recreational runners were individuals running in a nonprofessional (amateur) context. The prevalence rate and odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval [CI]) for OA between runners (at competitive and recreational levels) and controls were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted for OA location (hip or knee), sex, and years of exposure to running (less or more than 15 years). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (n = 125 810 individuals) were included and 17 (n = 114 829 individuals) were meta-analyzed. The overall prevalence of hip and knee OA was 13.3% (95% CI: 11.6%, 15.2%) in competitive runners, 3.5% (95% CI: 3.4%, 3.6%) in recreational runners, and 10.2% (95% CI: 9.9%, 10.6%) in controls. The odds ratio for hip and/or knee OA in competitive runners was higher than that in recreational runners (1.34; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.86 and 0.86; 95% CI: 0.69, 1.07, respectively; controls as reference group; for difference, P<.001). Exposure to running of less than 15 years was associated with a lower association with hip and/or knee OA compared with controls (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.49, 0.73). CONCLUSION: Recreational runners had a lower occurrence of OA compared with competitive runners and controls. These results indicated that a more sedentary lifestyle or long exposure to high-volume and/or high-intensity running are both associated with hip and/or knee OA. However, it was not possible to determine whether these associations were causative or confounded by other risk factors, such as previous injury.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bergerson, Emma, et al.
(författare)
-
Superior Outcome of Early ACL Reconstruction versus Initial Non-reconstructive Treatment With Late Crossover to Surgery A Study From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Sports Medicine. - : SAGE Publications. - 0363-5465 .- 1552-3365. ; 50:4, s. 896-903
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Although comparable clinical and functional outcomes have been reported after nonsurgical and surgical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) treatment, few studies have investigated the effects of early versus late ACL reconstruction with initial rehabilitation. Purpose: To determine patient-reported knee function in patients who initially undergo nonreconstructive treatment after an ACL injury but who later choose to undergo ACL reconstruction as compared with (1) patients undergoing ACL reconstruction close to the index injury and (2) patients treated nonreconstructively at 1 to 10 years of follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Results from the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry for patients treated with nonreconstruction, early ACL reconstruction, and initial nonreconstruction but subsequent ACL reconstruction (crossover group). The KOOS4 (a mean of 4 KOOS subscales) was analyzed cross-sectionally at baseline and at the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year follow-ups. Additionally, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) was applied to all KOOS subscales from baseline to the 10-year follow-up. Results: A total of 1,074 crossover, 484 nonreconstruction, and 20,352 early ACL reconstruction cases were included. The crossover group reported lower KOOS4 values than the group undergoing early ACL reconstruction at baseline and at all follow-ups (mean difference [95% CI]): baseline, -6.5 (-8.0 to -5.0); 1 year, -9.3 (-10.9 to -7.7); 2 years, -4.8 (-6.3 to -3.2); 5 years, -6.1 (-8.8 to -3.4); and 10 years, -10.9 (-16.3 to -5.2). Additionally, a smaller proportion of the crossover cohort achieved a PASS on KOOS subscales at baseline and through the 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year follow-ups as compared with the early ACL reconstruction cohort. No differences were observed between crossover and nonreconstruction cases on either the KOOS4 or the PASS at any follow-up. Conclusion: A greater proportion of patients treated with early ACL reconstruction reported acceptable knee function and superior overall knee function as compared with patients who decided to cross over from nonreconstructive treatment to ACL reconstruction.
|
|
| 5. |
- Byrne, K. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Non-anatomic tunnel position increases the risk of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0942-2056 .- 1433-7347. ; :30, s. 1388-1395
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure is a complication that may require revision ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). Non-anatomic placement of the femoral tunnel is thought to be a frequent cause of graft failure; however, there is a lack of evidence to support this belief. The purpose of this study was to determine if non-anatomic femoral tunnel placement is associated with increased risk of revision ACL-R. Methods After screening all 315 consecutive patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL-R by a single senior orthopedic surgeon between January 2012 and January 2017, 58 patients were found to have both strict lateral radiographs and a minimum of 24 months follow-up without revision. From a group of 456 consecutive revision ACL-R, patients were screened for strictly lateral radiographs and 59 patients were included in the revision group. Femoral tunnel placement for each patient was determined using a strict lateral radiograph taken after the primary ACL-R using the quadrant method. The center of the femoral tunnel was measured in both the posterior-anterior (PA) and proximal-distal (PD) dimensions and represented as a percentage of the total distance (normal center of anatomic footprint: PA 25% and PD 29%). Results In the PA dimension, the revision group had significantly more anterior femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (38% +/- 11% vs. 28% +/- 6%, p < 0.01). Among patients who underwent revision; those with non-traumatic chronic failure had statistically significant more anterior femoral tunnel placement than those who experienced traumatic failure (41% +/- 13% vs. 35% +/- 8%, p < 0.03). In the PD dimension, the revision group had significantly more proximal femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (30% +/- 9% vs 38% +/- 9%, p < 0.01). Conclusion In this retrospective study of 58 patients with successful primary ACL-R compared with 59 patients with failed ACL-R, anterior and proximal (high) femoral tunnels for ACL-R were shown to be independent risk factors for ACL revision surgery. As revision ACL-R is associated with patient- and economic burden, particular attention should be given to achieving an individualized, anatomic primary ACL-R. Surgeons may reduce the risk of revision ACL-R by placing the center of the femoral tunnel within the anatomic ACL footprint.
|
|
| 6. |
- Desai, Neel, et al.
(författare)
-
Revision surgery in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 17,682 patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0942-2056 .- 1433-7347. ; 25:5, s. 1542-1554
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To investigate the association between surgical variables and the risk of revision surgery after ACL reconstruction in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon were included. Follow-up started with primary ACL reconstruction and ended with ACL revision surgery or on 31 December, 2014, whichever occurred first. Details on surgical technique were collected using an online questionnaire. All group comparisons were made in relation to an "anatomic" reference group, comprised of essential AARSC items, defined as utilization of accessory medial portal drilling, anatomic tunnel placement, visualization of insertion sites and pertinent landmarks. Study end-point was revision surgery. A total of 108 surgeons (61.7%) replied to the questionnaire. A total of 17,682 patients were included [n = 10,013 males (56.6%) and 7669 females (43.4%)]. The overall revision rate was 3.1%. Older age as well as cartilage injury evident at index surgery was associated with a decreased risk of revision surgery. The group using transtibial drilling and non-anatomic bone tunnel placement was associated with a lower risk of revision surgery [HR 0.694 (95% CI 0.490-0.984); P = 0.041] compared with the anatomic reference group. The anatomic reference group showed no difference in risk of revision surgery compared with the transtibial drilling groups with partial anatomic [HR 0.759 (95% CI 0.548-1.051), n.s.] and anatomic tunnel placement [HR 0.944 (95% CI 0.718-1.241), n.s.]. The anatomic reference group showed a decreased risk of revision surgery compared with the transportal drilling group with anatomic placement [HR 1.310 (95% CI 1.047-1.640); P = 0.018]. Non-anatomic bone tunnel placement via transtibial drilling resulted in the lowest risk of revision surgery after ACL reconstruction. The risk of revision surgery increased when using transportal drilling. Performing anatomic ACL reconstruction utilizing eight selected essential items from the AARSC lowered the risk of revision surgery associated with transportal drilling and anatomic bone tunnel placement. Detailed knowledge of surgical technique using the AARSC predicts the risk of ACL revision surgery.
|
|
| 7. |
- Diermeier, T. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Treatment after ACL injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 55:1, s. 14-22
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Treatment strategies for ACL injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines to manage ACL injury is largely based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened determine consensus regarding best available evidence on operative versus non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study is to report the consensus statements on operative versus non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organising Committee and Session Chairs. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to 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. Eighty per cent agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative versus non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the Symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support, two reached strong consensus, one did not achieve consensus, and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting and pivoting sports, early anatomical ACL reconstruction is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus 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, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomical ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field may assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.
|
|
| 8. |
- Diermeier, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-Reported and Quantitative Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autografts
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - : SAGE Publications. - 2325-9671. ; 8:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The pivot-shift test has become more consistent and reliable and is a meaningful outcome measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this investigation was to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the quantitative pivot shift (QPS) preoperatively, at time zero immediately after anatomic ACLR, and after 24 months as well as the relationship between PROs and the QPS. It was hypothesized that anatomic ACLR would restore rotatory stability measured by the pivot-shift test and that QPS measurements would be positively correlated with PROs. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The ACL-injured and contralateral uninjured knees from 89 of 107 (83.2%) enrolled patients at 4 international centers were evaluated using a standardized pivot-shift test. Tibial acceleration was assessed with an inertial sensor, and lateral compartment translation was measured using an image analysis system preoperatively, at time zero immediately postoperatively, and at follow-up after 2 years. PROs were assessed at 12 and 24 months postoperatively with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS), Marx activity rating scale, and activity of daily living score (ADLS). Results: The mean patient age at surgery was 27 years (range, 15-45 years). A positive pivot shift preoperatively (side-to-side difference in tibial acceleration, 2.6 +/- 4.0 m/s(2); side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation, 2.0 +/- 2.0 mm) was reduced at time zero postoperatively (side-to-side difference in tibial acceleration, -0.5 +/- 1.3 m/s(2); side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation, -0.1 +/- 1.0 mm). All PROs improved from preoperatively to final follow-up at 24 months: from 56.5 to 85.5 points for the IKDC (P= .0001), from 28.8 to 32.4 points for the CKRS (P= .04), from 11.2 to 7.9 points for the Marx (P< .0001), and from 75.7 to 91.6 points for the ADLS (P< .0001). Neither preoperative nor time zero postoperative rotatory laxity assessed by the pivot-shift test correlated with PROs at 24-month follow-up. A graft retear was observed in 4 patients (4.5%) within 2 years of follow-up. Conclusion: Anatomic ACLR resulted in significantly improved and acceptable PROs at 2-year follow-up and a low failure rate. Anatomic ACLR restored QPS measurements of anterior tibial translation and tibial acceleration to those of the contralateral knee immediately after surgery while still under anesthesia, but there was no correlation between the QPS preoperatively or at time zero after ACLR and PROs at 2-year follow-up.
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- Figueroa, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Return to sport soccer after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: ISAKOS consensus
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of ISAKOS. - : Elsevier BV. - 2059-7754. ; 7:6, s. 150-161
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Many factors can affect the return to pivoting sports, after an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Prehabilitation, rehabilitation, surgical and psychological aspects play an essential role in the decision to return to sports. The purpose of this study is to reach an international consensus about the best conditions for returning to sports in soccer—one of the most demanding level I pivoting sports after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods: 34 International experts in the management of ACL injuries, representing all the Continents were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method to achieve a consensus. 37 statements related to ACL reconstruction were reviewed by the experts in three rounds of surveys in complete anonymity. The statements were prepared by the working group based on previous literature or systematic reviews. Rating agreement through a Likert Scale: strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree and strongly disagree was used. To define consensus, it was established that the assertions should achieve a 75% of agreement or disagreement. Results: Of the 37 statements, 10 achieved unanimous consensus, 18 non-unanimous consensus and 9 did not achieve consensus. In the preoperative, the correction of the range of motion deficit, the previous high level of participation in sports and a better knowledge of the injury by the patient and compliance to participate in Rehabilitation were the statements that reached unanimous consensus. During the surgery, the treatment of associated injuries, as well as the use of autografts, and the addition of a lateral extra-articular tenodesis in some particular cases (active young athletes, <25 years old, hyperlaxity, high rotatory laxity and revision cases) obtained also 100% consensus. In the postoperative period, psychological readiness and its validation with scales, adequate physical preparation, as well as not basing the RTSS purely on the time of evolution after surgery, were the factors that reached unanimous Consensus. Conclusions: The consensus statements derived from this international ISAKOS leaders, may assist clinicians in deciding when to return to sports soccer in patients after an ACL reconstruction. Those statements that reached 100% consensus have to be strongly considered in the final decision to RTS soccer. © 2022 The Authors
|
|
