Osteotomy around the painful degenerative varus knee has broader indications than conventionally described but must follow a strict planning process: ESSKA Formal Consensus Part I.

PURPOSE: The European consensus was designed with the objective of combining science and expertise to produce recommendations that would educate and provide guidance in the treatment of the painful degenerative varus knee. Part I focused on indications and planning. METHODS: Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 European countries were involved in the consensus, which focused on the most common indications for osteotomy around the knee. The consensus was performed according to an established ESSKA methodology. The questions and recommendations made were initially designed by the consensus steering group. And 'best possible' answers were provided based upon the scientific evidence available and the experience of the experts. The statements produced were further evaluated by ratings and peer review groups before a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: There is no reliable evidence to exclude patients based on age, gender or body weight. An individualised approach is advised; however, cessation of smoking is recommended. The same applies to lesser degrees of patellofemoral and lateral compartment arthritis, which may be accepted in certain situations. Good-quality limb alignment and knee radiographs are a mandatory requirement for planning of osteotomies, and Paley's angles and normal ranges are recommended when undertaking deformity analysis. Emphasis is placed upon the correct level at which correction of varus malalignment is performed, which may involve double-level osteotomy. This includes recognition of the importance of individual bone morphology and the maintenance of a physiologically appropriate joint line orientation. CONCLUSION: The indications of knee osteotomies for painful degenerative varus knees are broad. Part I of the consensus highlights the versatility of the procedure to address multiple scenarios with bespoke planning for each case. Deformity analysis is mandatory for defining the bone morphology, the site of the deformity and planning the correct procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, consensus.

Surgical strategy and complication management of osteotomy around the painful degenerative varus knee: ESSKA Formal Consensus Part II.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the European consensus was to provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with a painful degenerative varus knee using a joint preservation approach. Part II focused on surgery, rehabilitation and complications after tibial or femoral correction osteotomy. METHODS: Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 countries across Europe were involved in the consensus, which focused on osteotomies around the knee. The consensus was performed according to the European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy consensus methodology. The steering group designed the questions and prepared the statements based on the experience of the experts and the evidence of the literature. The statements were evaluated by the ratings of the peer-review groups before a final consensus was released. RESULTS: The ideal hinge position for medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOW HTO) should be at the upper level of the proximal tibiofibular joint, and for lateral closing wedge distal femoral osteotomy (LCW DFO) just above the medial femoral condyle. Hinge protection is not mandatory. Biplanar osteotomy cuts provide more stability and quicker bony union for both MOW HTO and LCW DFO and are especially recommended for the latter. Osteotomy gap filling is not mandatory, unless structural augmentation for stability is required. Patient-specific instrumentation should be reserved for complex cases by experienced hands. Early full weight-bearing can be adopted after osteotomy, regardless of the technique. However, extra caution should be exercised in DFO patients. Osteotomy patients should return to sports within 6 months. CONCLUSION: Clear recommendations for surgical strategy, rehabilitation and complications of knee osteotomies for the painful degenerative varus knee were demonstrated. In Part 2 of the consensus, high levels of agreement were reached by experts throughout Europe, under variable working conditions. Where science is limited, the collated expertise of the collaborators aimed at providing guidance for orthopaedic surgeons developing an interest in the field and highlighting areas for potential future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, consensus.

The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A European ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 1-Blood-derived products (platelet-rich plasma).

PURPOSE: The aim of this European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) consensus is to provide recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve indications, decision-making and administration-related aspects when using blood-derived orthobiologics (for simplicity indicated as PRP-platelet-rich plasma-with PRP being the most common product) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Leading European expert clinicians and scientists were divided into a steering group, a rating group and a peer review group. The steering group prepared 28 question-statement sets divided into three sections: PRP rationale and indications, PRP preparation and characterisation and PRP protocol. The quality of the statements received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientific support) to B (scientific presumption), C (low-level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). The question-statement sets were then evaluated by the rating group, and the statements scored from 1 to 9 based on their degree of agreement with the statements produced by the steering group. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the document was submitted to the peer review group who evaluated the geographic adaptability and approved the document. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to produce the official document. RESULTS: The literature review on the use of blood-derived products for knee OA revealed that 9 of 28 questions/statements had the support of high-level scientific literature, while the other 19 were supported by a medium-low scientific quality. Three of the 28 recommendations were grade A recommendations: (1) There is enough preclinical and clinical evidence to support the use of PRP in knee OA. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8). (2) Clinical evidence has shown the effectiveness of PRP in patients for mild to moderate degrees of knee OA (KL ≤ 3). This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8.1). (3) PRP injections have been shown to provide a longer effect in comparison to the short-term effect of CS injections. They also seem to provide a safer use profile with less potential related complications. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a very strong agreement (mean: 8.7). Six statements were grade B recommendations, 7 were grade C and 12 were grade D. The mean rating score was 8.2 ± 0.3. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus group reached a high level of agreement on all the questions/statements despite the lack of clear evidence for some questions. According to the results from this consensus group, given the large body of existing literature and expert opinions, PRP was regarded as a valid treatment option for knee OA and as a possible first-line injectable treatment option for nonoperative management of knee OA, mainly for KL grades 1-3. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

ESSKA consensus initiative: why, when and how?

The goal of a Consensus in clinical practice is to provide daily practitioners with evidence- based recommendations on data from the literature, clinical expertise and expectations of professionals and patients. In this context, a consensus aligns with the principles of evidence-based medicine in clinical practice and is consequently regarded as a scientific work of a certain level of evidence (LOE). It is expected that such a project may contribute to filling the gap observed between scientific evidence and reality of the daily practice.A Clinical Consensus is particularly needed for those topics that are of interest to daily practice but controversial due to lack of evidence, and for which expert agreement can provide valuable support in reaching conclusions.A Consensus requires a strict methodology, based on two principles: an iterative process with independence of the involved groups and pluralism (geographical and professional representation). These processes guarantee the scientific quality of the recommendations.Among the various consensus modalities, ESSKA has adopted the Formal Consensus derived from the Delphi method, and the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. These two methods are complementary. The first one, based on questions-answers sets, is particularly suitable for questions of terminology, diagnosis, planning, strategy. The second one is based on the concept of scenarios, particularly adapted to treatment indications. These two methods can also be used within the same consensus.The aim of this article is to define what is a consensus initiative, to detail the methodology ESSKA has chosen, and to point out the key role of the dissemination.

Scientific misconduct: Plagiarism and non-compliance with disclosure of interest: Retrospective analysis of 1 year's submissions to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research.

INTRODUCTION: Authors submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) must fulfill the criteria of scientific integrity (SI), including issues of plagiarism and disclosure of interest. These data have not been assessed for OTSR and we therefore conducted a retrospective study of (1) potential plagiarism rates, (2) deficient disclosure of interest (for French authors), and (3) correlation between the two. HYPOTHESIS: Suspected plagiarism rates exceed 20% and the non-disclosure rate exceeds 80%. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed 1 year's submissions to OTSR: January 24, 2022 to January 23, 2023. Articles were checked for plagiarism, using iThenticate software (Turnitin, Oakland, CA, USA), with a threshold of > 20% matching. Conflicts of interest, for French authors, investigated on the French Ministry of Health Transparence website (www.transparence.sante.gouv.fr), with non-disclosure defined by undeclared amounts exceeding €1000. RESULTS: In total, 851 submissions were analyzed. iThenticate identified 152 (17.7%) with > 20% matching to an already published article. This likely plagiarism varied (p<0.01) between geographic origins of submissions. In the 289 submissions by French authors, there were 275 (95%) failures to report amounts exceeding €1000. Combined non-disclosure and plagiarism was found in only 3 articles submitted by French authors (3/289: 1.03%). DISCUSSION: OTSR applies the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (www.icmje.org), adheres to the guidelines of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and the French Health Authority (HAS), and has an ethics committee. Plagiarism is a major SI breach, suspected in 20% of submissions. Also, 95% of French authors failed to properly disclose their interests on submitting an article, although this declaration is mandatory in France and is an integral aspect of SI. There are also other forms of misconduct, such as failure to comply with the French "Jardé" law on research involving human subjects, failure to obtain review board approval, unjustified claims to authorship or deficient archiving, that were not analyzed here. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall plagiarism rates were under 20% for submissions to OTSR, some geographic areas were more concerned than others. Also, despite reminders by the editorial board, only 5% of French authors made full disclosures; this is a major breach of SI, requiring correction on the part of French authors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; retrospective study.

Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part III-indications for different clinical scenarios using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

PURPOSE: The aim of the ESSKA 2022 consensus Part III was to develop patient-focused, contemporary, evidence-based, guidelines on the indications for revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery (ACLRev). METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to provide recommendations on the appropriateness of surgical treatment versus conservative treatment in different clinical scenarios based on current scientific evidence in conjunction with expert opinion. A core panel defined the clinical scenarios with a moderator and then guided a panel of 17 voting experts through the RAM tasks. Through a two-step voting process, the panel established a consensus as to the appropriateness of ACLRev for each scenario based on a nine-point Likert scale (in which a score in the range 1-3 was considered 'inappropriate', 4-6 'uncertain', and 7-9 'appropriate'). RESULTS: The criteria used to define the scenarios were: age (18-35 years vs 36-50 years vs 51-60 years), sports activity and expectation (Tegner 0-3 vs 4-6 vs 7-10), instability symptoms (yes vs no), meniscus status (functional vs repairable vs non-functional meniscus), and osteoarthritis (OA) (Kellgren-Lawrence [KL] grade 0-I-II vs grade III). Based on these variables, a set of 108 clinical scenarios was developed. ACLRev was considered appropriate in 58%, inappropriate in 12% (meaning conservative treatment is indicated), and uncertain in 30%. Experts considered ACLRev appropriate for patients with instability symptoms, aged ≤ 50 years, regardless of sports activity level, meniscus status, and OA grade. Results were much more controversial in patients without instability symptoms, while higher inappropriateness was related to scenarios with older age (51-60 years), low sporting expectation, non-functional meniscus, and knee OA (KL III). CONCLUSION: This expert consensus establishes guidelines as to the appropriateness of ACLRev based on defined criteria and provides a useful reference for clinical practice in determining treatment indications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Ramp lesion repair via dual posteromedial arthroscopic portals: A cadaveric feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Ramp lesions are found in 16% to 40% of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The repair technique traditionally involves using a suture hook through a posteromedial portal, with the arthroscope positioned in the intercondylar view via an antero-lateral portal. Ramp lesions may be difficult to visualize and repair, even with a 70° arthroscope. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of suturing ramp lesions via dual posteromedial portals for the arthroscope and instruments. HYPOTHESIS: Dual posteromedial arthroscopic portals allow good visualisation and high-quality suturing of ramp lesions, without inducing specific iatrogenic injuries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used 11 fresh cadaver knees. Two posteromedial portals were created under visualisation via an arthroscope introduced through an antero-lateral portal: one was the traditional instrumental portal and the other, located more proximally, was the optical portal. A 2-cm long ramp lesion was created. A suture hook was used to place one or two stitches of PDS n°0 suture. A probe was used to test the quality and stability of the suturing. The posteromedial plane was then dissected to evaluate the anatomical relationships of the portals. RESULTS: The dual posteromedial approach allowed the visualisation and hook suturing of the ramp lesions in all 11 cases. A single stitch was placed in 4 cases and two stitches in 7 cases. The suture was always of good quality and stable when tested with the probe. The dissection found no injuries to nerves, blood vessels, or tendons. CONCLUSION: Ramp lesions can be repaired through a dual posteromedial arthroscopic approach. This surgical technique provides good visibility of these lesions and allows high-quality suturing, with no specific iatrogenic injuries. It is an alternative to ramp lesion repair via a single posteromedial portal, which can be challenging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, experimental study with no control group.

Does practice of meniscus surgery change over time? A report of the 2021 'THE MENISCUS' Webinar.

PURPOSE: The aim of this paper was to report the results presented in the session "Does practice of meniscus surgery change over time?" of the 2021 MENISCUS webinar held online on January 30th 2021. METHOD: During the 2021 MENISCUS webinar, an evaluation of meniscus surgery practices was performed by analyzing: (1) The presentation of the results of a survey conducted among ESSKA members and assessing their current practices in the field of meniscus surgery, (2) Four reports by national experts analyzing the trends in Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy (APM) and meniscus repair procedures in their respective countries (France, Belgium, Germany and Japan). RESULTS: (1) ESSKA Survey: Among the 461 respondents, 75% of surgeons claimed to perform more meniscus repairs and 85% less APM than 5 years ago. In ACL-associated meniscus injuries, a majority of surgeons (60%) indicated to perform a meniscal resection in less than 25% of cases. 25% declared to perform meniscus repair in ACL-associated meniscus injuries in less than 25% of cases and 37% in more than 50% of cases. Half of the respondents repair medial or lateral root tears in less than 25% of cases. Less than 20% of respondents were not familiar with the ESSKA consensus. (2) National trends: In France, between 2005 and 2017, the APM rate decreased by 21.4%, while the repair rate increased by 320%. In Belgium, between 2007 and 2017, the APM rate decreased by 28.6%. In Germany, between 2010 and 2017 the number of APM decreased by 30%, while the number of repair procedures increased by 55%. Finally, in Japan, between 2011 and 2016, the APM ratio (APM/meniscus procedures) decreased by 16% from 91 to 75% while the repair ratio increased from 9 to 25%. CONCLUSION: The 2021 ESSKA members' survey as well as statistics from 4 specifically examined countries (Belgium, France, Germany and Japan) suggest there has been a significant shift over the last years in the surgical management of meniscal lesions towards less APM and more conservative treatments.

Editorial Commentary: Surgical Management of Degenerative Meniscus Lesions Is a Second- But Not a First-Line Treatment.

The 20-year progression of osteoarthritis (OA) after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in patients aged between 50 and 70 bears a long-term risk of conversion to total knee arthroplasty of 15.7%. Negative predictors at the time of surgery are the degree of knee OA, lateral meniscectomy, age at surgery, and malalignment. This confirms the evolution of the natural history of knee OA, but most importantly, it provides arguments to further restrain indications of APM in degenerative meniscus lesions (DMLs). An improved understanding of the consequences of APM for DMLs allows to increasingly limit the indications of this procedure, thus rendering it pertinent and efficient. Over the last years, the numbers of APM have been declining in several countries. This reduction required many surgeons to undergo a paradigm shift. This change cannot be induced by an anathema but by educational programs and guidelines based on broad consensus of the surgical communities, like the 2016 European Meniscus Consensus Project initiated by the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA). It provided a reference frame for the management of DMLs, based both on scientific literature and balanced expert opinion. The proposed decisional algorithm introduced APM not as a first- but as a second-line treatment of DMLs in symptomatic patients. A recent survey presented earlier this month at the international conference "The Meniscus" among ESSKA members showed that a majority of the 460 respondents were familiar with the ESSKA consensus and that 66% of them changed their practice following its publication. Paradigm changes take time. The history of meniscus repair showed that it takes many years to develop medical and surgical practice. And there is a good reason for this. Paradigms are not fashionable that come and go with the seasons. The medical and orthopaedic communities need to get them right by improving clinical science and balancing discussions.

The future of meniscus science: international expert consensus.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the main focus areas for research and development for furthering the state of meniscus science in 2021. METHODS: An electronic survey including 10 questions was sent in a blind fashion to the faculty members of the 5th International Conference on Meniscus Science and Surgery. These faculty served as an expert consensus on the future of research and development areas of meniscus science. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ranking weighted averages were calculated to score survey questions. RESULTS: Of the 82 faculty, 76 (93%) from 18 different countries completed the survey (84% male, 16% female). The highest ranked future research and development focus areas were meniscus repair, biologics, osteotomy procedures, addressing meniscus extrusion, and the development of new therapies for the prevention of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Currently, the most 'valuable' type of biologic reported for meniscus treatment was platelet-rich plasma. The main reported global research limitation was a lack of long-term clinical outcomes data. The most promising emerging medical technologies for improving meniscus science were 3-D printing, personalized medicine, and artificial implants. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests that the future of meniscus science should be focused on meniscal preservation techniques through meniscus repair, addressing meniscal extrusion, and the use of orthobiologics. The lack of long-term clinical outcomes was the main reported research limitation globally for meniscus treatment. Future product development utilizing emerging medical technologies suggest the use of 3-D printing for meniscal transplants/scaffolds, personalized treatment, and bioengineering for artificial implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Polyurethane Meniscal Scaffold for the Treatment of Partial Meniscal Deficiency: 5-Year Follow-up Outcomes: A European Multicentric Study.

BACKGROUND: A biodegradable polyurethane scaffold was developed to treat patients with the challenging clinical condition of painful partial meniscal defects. HYPOTHESIS: The use of an acellular polyurethane scaffold in patients with symptomatic partial meniscal defects would result in both midterm pain relief and improved function. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 155 patients with symptomatic partial meniscal defects (101 medial and 54 lateral) were implanted with a polyurethane scaffold in a prospective, single-arm, multicentric study with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes were measured with the visual analog scale for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, Lysholm knee scale, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at baseline and at 2- and 5-year follow-ups. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate the knee joint, meniscal implant, and meniscal extrusion. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was also performed. Removal of the scaffold, conversion to a meniscal transplant, and unicompartmental/total knee arthroplasty were used as endpoints. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were lost to follow-up (11.6%). The patients who were included in this study showed significant clinical improvement after surgery as indicated by the different outcome measures (P = .01). However, the clinical improvement tended to stabilize between 2 and 5 years of follow-up. MRI scans of the scaffolds in 56 patients showed a smaller-sized implant in the majority of the cases when compared with the native meniscus with an irregular surface at the 5-year follow-up. During the follow-up period, 87.6% of the implants survived in this study. At 5 years of follow-up, 87.9% of the medial scaffolds were still functioning versus 86.9% of the lateral scaffolds. In total, 23 treatments had failed: 10 removed scaffolds because of breakage, 7 conversions to meniscal allograft transplantation, 4 conversions to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 2 conversions to total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: The polyurethane meniscal implant was able to improve knee joint function and reduce pain in patients with segmental meniscal deficiency over 5 years after implantation. The MRI appearance of this scaffold was different from the original meniscal tissue at the midterm follow-up. The treatment survival rates of 87.9% of the medial scaffolds and 86.9% of the lateral scaffolds in the present study compared favorably with those published concerning meniscal allograft transplantation after total meniscectomy.

Management of traumatic meniscus tears: the 2019 ESSKA meniscus consensus.

PURPOSE: The importance of meniscus integrity in the prevention of early osteoarthritis is well known, and preservation is accepted as the primary goal. The purpose of the ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy) European consensus on traumatic meniscus tears was to provide recommendations for the treatment of meniscus tears based on both scientific evidence and the clinical experience of knee experts. METHODS: Three groups of surgeons and scientists elaborated and ratified the so-called formal consensus process to define the recommendations for the management of traumatic meniscus tears. A traumatic meniscus tear was defined as a tear with an acute onset of symptoms caused by a sufficient trauma. The expert groups included a steering group of eight European surgeons and scientists, a rating group of another nineteen European surgeons, and a peer review group. The steering group prepared twenty-seven question and answer sets based on the scientific literature. The quality of the answers received grades of A (a high level of scientific support), B (scientific presumption), C (a low level of scientific support) or D (expert opinion). These question and answer sets were then submitted to and evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 (= totally inappropriate) to 9 (= totally appropriate) points. Thereafter, the comments of the members 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 finalized question and answer sets were submitted for final review by the peer review group composed of representatives of the ESSKA-affiliated national societies. Eighteen representatives replied. RESULTS: The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the treatment of traumatic meniscus tears. Of the 27 questions, only one question received a grade of A (a high level of scientific support), and another received a grade of B (scientific presumption). The remaining questions received grades of C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.2 (95% confidence interval 8.1-8.4). A general agreement that MRI should be performed on a systematic basis was not achieved. However, MRI was recommended when arthroscopy would be considered to identify concomitant pathologies. In this case, the indication for MRI should be determined by a musculoskeletal specialist. Based on our data, stable left in situ lateral meniscus tears appear to show a better prognosis than medial tears. When repair is required, surgery should be performed as early as possible. Evidence that biological enhancement such as needling or the application of platelet-rich plasma would improve healing was not identified. Preservation of the meniscus should be considered as the first line of treatment because of an inferior clinical and radiological long-term outcome after partial meniscectomy compared to meniscus repair. DISCUSSION: The consensus was generated to present the best possible recommendations for the treatment of traumatic meniscus tears and provides some groundwork for a clinical decision-making process regarding the treatment of meniscus tears. Preservation of the meniscus should be the first line of treatment when possible, because the clinical and radiological long-term outcomes are worse after partial meniscectomy than after meniscus preservation. The consensus clearly states that numerous meniscus tears that were considered irreparable should be repaired, e.g., older tears, tears in obese patients, long tears, etc. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Multiligament knee injuries treated by one-stage reconstruction using allograft: Postoperative laxity assessment using stress radiography and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) leads to better outcomes but there are controversies about optimal surgical strategies. Debates remain about timing of surgery: acute, staged or delayed and about graft choice: autograft, allograft or a combination of both. Therefore, we performed a retrospective study aiming to evaluate postoperative laxity using stress radiographs and clinical outcomes after one-stage reconstructions of injured ligaments using non-irradiated, fresh-frozen allografts. HYPOTHESIS: MLKIs treated by one-stage reconstructions using non-irradiated, fresh-frozen allograft may lead to satisfactorily postoperative laxity and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Between November 2013 and July 2015, 23 patients with MLKIs underwent one-stage reconstruction using allograft. Knee injuries were defined according Schenk classification of Knee Dislocation (KD). Patients were evaluated using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form at a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Postoperative anterior, posterior, varus, and valgus laxities were assessed using stress radiographs and expressed as side-to-side differences (SSD) in millimeters. RESULTS: Three of 23 patients were lost to follow-up. There were 6 KD-I, 12 KD-III, and 2 KD-IV lesions, 12 lateral-side and 10 medial-side lesions, and 13 acute and 7 chronic cases. Three patients had associated neurovascular injuries. Mean follow-up was at 29.4±6.1 months. Mean valgus SSD was 0.2mm±1.4mm (range, -2.1-2.2mm), mean varus SSD was 1.4mm±2.5mm (range, -1.7-6.0mm), mean posterior SSD was 7.2mm±3.9mm (range, 1.2-16.0mm), mean anterior SSD was 3.6mm±5.1mm (range, -4.8-16.8mm). Overall IKDC ratings were: 4 grade A, 3B, 7C, and 6D. Three patients complained of postoperative instability, with an IKDC rating of D. The mean subjective IKDC score was 67.2±19.6, the mean Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale was 77.3±16.5, and the mean KOOS results were 78.5±16.6 for pain, 67.7±17.4 for symptoms, 86.5±14.2 for daily activities, 56±25.4 for sports, and 47.2±28.6 for quality of life. Nineteen of 20 patients returned to sport-6 to the same level. One patient underwent an arthroscopic arthrolysis due to postoperative arthrofibrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using non-irradiated allografts for one-stage reconstructions of all the injured ligaments in MLKIs is effective and safe. Anteroposterior stability was difficult to restore, but patients returned to their daily activities and sometimes to their sports activity at the same preinjury level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.