TY - JOUR
T1 - Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults
T2 - the 2022 ESSKA consensus: part II—surgical strategy
AU - Condello, Vincenzo
AU - Beaufilis, Philippe
AU - Becker, Roland
AU - Ahmad, Sufian S.
AU - Bonomo, Marco
AU - Dejour, David
AU - Eriksson, Karl
AU - Filardo, Giuseppe
AU - Feucht, Matthias J.
AU - Grassi, Alberto
AU - Wilson, Adrian
AU - Menetrey, Jacques
AU - Pujol, Nicolas
AU - Rathcke, Martin
AU - Seil, Romain
AU - Strauss, Marc J.
AU - Tischer, Thomas
N1 - Funding
No funding was provided for the completion of this study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision. Methods: Part 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been 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 then held to ratify the document. Results: The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + − 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article. Conclusion: ACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults. Level of evidence: Level II.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision. Methods: Part 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been 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 then held to ratify the document. Results: The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + − 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article. Conclusion: ACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults. Level of evidence: Level II.
KW - Anterior cruciate ligament
KW - Consensus
KW - Failure
KW - Revision
KW - Surgery
KW - Surgical strategy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85171157643&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37700168
U2 - 10.1007/s00167-023-07550-5
DO - 10.1007/s00167-023-07550-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 37700168
SN - 0942-2056
VL - 31
SP - 4652
EP - 4661
JO - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
JF - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
IS - 11
ER -