| 1. |
- Diermeier, T., et al.
(author)
-
Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2020
-
In: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0942-2056 .- 1433-7347. ; 28, s. 2390-2402
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Patient-Reported and Quantitative Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autografts
- 2020
-
In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - : SAGE Publications. - 2325-9671. ; 8:7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Diermeier, Theresa, et al.
(author)
-
Treatment After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group
- 2020
-
In: Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. - 2325-9671. ; 8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Horvath, Alexandra, et al.
(author)
-
Objectifying the Pivot Shift Test
- 2020
-
In: Sports medicine and arthroscopy review. - 1538-1951. ; 28:2, s. 36-40
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The pivot shift test is utilized for assessment of rotatory instability in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficient knee. There are multiple reports of the pivot shift maneuver, and there is a lack of consensus among clinicians as to a standardized maneuver. Measurement devices are a feasible option to evaluate rotatory knee instability, objectively or quantitatively. Traditionally, measurement systems have been invasive systems. More recently, electromagnetic system, inertial sensor, or imaging analysis systems, specifically with the utilization of a tablet computer, have emerged as noninvasive, and more importantly, validated options. It is important to recognize that anatomic structures other than the ACL contribute to rotatory knee stability. Addressing the tibial slope, anterolateral structures of the knee, specifically the iliotibial band, and menisci during ACL surgery may decrease residual pivot shift in an attempt to improve clinical outcomes and prevent reinjury. This review article describes the pivot shift maneuver, objective measurement tools, and clinical applications of the pivot shift test.
|
|
| 5. |
- Karlsson, Jón, 1953, et al.
(author)
-
Thank you for 2019
- 2020
-
In: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0942-2056 .- 1433-7347. ; 28:1, s. 1-4
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 6. |
- Svantesson, Eleonor, et al.
(author)
-
Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group
- 2020
-
In: Journal of ISAKOS. - : Elsevier BV. - 2059-7754. ; 5, s. 281-294
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Purpose: 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. Methods: To establish a standardised 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. Results: 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 patient-reported outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid-term to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. Conclusion: 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. Level of Evidence: Level V. © International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.
|
|
