Treatment of Primary Dorsal Wrist Ganglion-A Systematic Review.

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the rates of recurrence and wound infection in patients with primary dorsal wrist ganglion treated with aspiration (with or without an injection of an additive), open excision, or arthroscopic resection. Methods This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered on PROSPERO. Systematic electronic searches in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials were performed on May 5, 2020, and June 1, 2021, respectively. All clinical studies written in English determining the recurrence and wound infection rates after treatment of primary dorsal wrist ganglion with aspiration, open excision, or arthroscopic resection in patients over the age of 16 years were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was guided by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) tool for observational studies. Results The literature searches resulted in 1,691 studies. After screening, five RCTs, enrolling 233 patients, and six observational studies, enrolling 316 patients with primary dorsal wrist ganglions were included. Quality assessment of the included RCTs and observational studies determined the existing level of evidence pertaining to primary dorsal wrist ganglion treatment to be low. About 11 studies reported on recurrence rate, which ranged between 7 and 72% for patients initially treated with aspiration (with or without an injection of an additive). In comparison, the recurrence rate for the open excision and arthroscopic resection groups ranged between 6 to 41% and 0 to 16%, respectively. Four studies investigated wound-related complications, for which zero infections were reported, irrespective of treatment. Conclusion The evidence summarized in this systematic review demonstrates a considerable variability in recurrence rate following aspiration and open or arthroscopic resection of a primary dorsal wrist ganglion. The greatest variability in recurrence was displayed among studies on aspiration. The overall infection rate after treatment of dorsal wrist ganglions seems to be low regardless of the treatment type. However, the divergent results of individual studies highlight a pressing need for prospective controlled trials assessing outcomes following dorsal wrist ganglion treatment. Level of Evidence Systematic review on level 1 to 4 clinical therapeutic studies.

Sports activity and quality of life improve after isolated ACL, isolated PCL, and combined ACL/PCL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported outcomes following isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R), isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R), and combined ACL-R and PCL-R (ACL/PCL-R), at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. METHODS: This was a prospective observational registry cohort study based on the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients undergoing isolated ACL-R, isolated PCL-R, and combined ACL/PCL-R between 2005 and 2019 were eligible for inclusion. Demographic characteristics as well as injury- and surgery-related data were queried from the SNKLR. To evaluate functional outcomes, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at 1- and 2-year follow-ups and compared between the treatment groups. RESULTS: In total, 45,169 patients underwent isolated ACL-R, 192 patients isolated PCL-R, and 203 patients combined ACL/PCL-R. Preoperatively, and at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, KOOS subscales were highest for the isolated ACL-R group, followed by the isolated PCL-R, and lowest for the combined ACL/PCL-R groups. Significant improvements were observed across all treatment groups in the majority of KOOS subscales between the preoperative, and 1- and 2-year follow-ups. All treatment groups showed the greatest improvements between the preoperative and 2-year follow-ups in the knee-related quality of life (mean improvement: isolated ACL-R, + 28 points; isolated PCL-R, + 23 points; combined ACL/PCL-R, + 21 points) and the function in sport and recreation (mean improvement: isolated ACL-R, + 26 points; isolated PCL-R, + 20 points; combined ACL/PCL-R, + 19 points) subscales. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant improvements in knee function can be expected after isolated ACL-R, isolated PCL-R, and combined ACL/PCL-R. Functional improvements were particularly pronounced in the KOOS function in sport and recreation subscale, indicating the importance of knee stability for sports activity. This study facilitates more comprehensive patient education about functional expectations after surgical treatment of isolated and combined ACL and PCL injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Different patient and activity-related characteristics result in different injury profiles for patients with anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament injuries.

PURPOSE: To compare patient characteristics including patient sex, age, body mass index (BMI), activities at the time of injury and injury profiles in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Two study groups were created: (1) index ACL reconstruction (ACL group) and (2) index PCL reconstruction (PCL group). Between-group differences were investigated using Fisher's exact test and Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for dichotomous variables and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Of 39,010 patients, 38,904 were ACL injuries. A larger proportion of patients with combined injuries to the PCL, meniscus and cartilage were female, aged > 25 years and with a BMI of > 35 kg/m2 compared with patients with combined injuries to the ACL, meniscus and cartilage. An isolated ACL injury was more commonly found in males, while all other injury profiles of ACL, including combined injuries with meniscus, cartilage and collateral ligament injuries, were more frequently observed in females. The PCL injuries were sustained either during pivoting sports, non-pivoting sports or were traffic-related. CONCLUSION: Different patient characteristics (BMI, age and sex), and activities at the time of injury (sport- versus traffic-related activities), resulted in distinct injury profiles for the ACL and PCL groups. These findings provide valuable information of the way specific injury patterns of cruciate ligament injuries occur, and subsequently may help clinicians with the diagnostic process of ACL and PCL injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Scoping Review on ACL Surgery and Registry Data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present an overview of registry-based anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) research, as well as provide insight into the future of ACL registries. RECENT FINDINGS: During the past decades, the ACL registries have had an important role in increasing our understanding of patients with ACL injuries and their treatment. The registry data has deepened our understanding of factors that have been associated with an increased risk of sustaining an ACL injury and for evaluation of treatment factors and their impact on patient-related outcomes. Recently, registry-based ACL research using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has shown potential to create clinical decision-making tools and analyzing outcomes. Thus, standardization of collected data between the registries is needed to facilitate the further collaboration between registries and to facilitate the interpretation of results and subsequently improve the possibilities for implementation of AI and ML in the registry-based research. Several studies have been based on the current ACL registries providing an insight into the epidemiology of ACL injuries as well as outcomes following ACL reconstruction. However, the current ACL registries are facing future challenges, and thus, new methods and techniques are needed to ensure further good quality and clinical applicability of study findings based on ACL registry data.

Different injury patterns exist among patients undergoing operative treatment of isolated PCL, combined PCL/ACL, and isolated ACL injuries: a study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry.

PURPOSE: To compare demographic characteristics and concomitant injury patterns in patients undergoing primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R) and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (PCL-R/ACL-R) with isolated ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) as a reference using data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR). METHODS: This cohort study based on the SNKLR comprised patients undergoing either PCL-R, ACL-R, or combined PCL-R/ACL-R between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019 in Sweden. Demographic and surgery-related data with regards to injury mechanism, concomitant intraarticular lesions and their treatment, neurovascular damage, and concomitant ligamentous injuries were extracted. Exclusion criteria included concomitant fractures of the femur, fibula, patella or tibia, and quadriceps or patellar tendon injury. RESULTS: A total of 45,564 patients were included in this study. Isolated PCL-R, combined PCL-R/ACL-R, and isolated ACL-R were performed in 192 (0.4%), 203 (0.5%) and 45,169 (99.1%) patients, respectively. Sports were identified as the cause of 64% of PCL-Rs, 54% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs, and 89% of ACL-Rs, while a traffic-related mechanism was identified in 20% of PCL-Rs, 27% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs and 2% of ACL-Rs. Meniscus injury prevalence was 45% in ACL-Rs, 31% in PCL-R/ACL-Rs and 16% in isolated PCL-Rs (p < 0.001). Cartilage injuries were more common in PCL-R (37%) and PCL-R/ACL-R patients (40%) compared to ACL-R patients (26%, p < 0.001). Concomitant knee ligament injury was identified in 28-44% of PCL-R/ACL-R patients. Neurovascular injuries were present in 9% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs, 1% of PCL-Rs, and 0.3% of ACL-Rs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Differences in injury mechanisms among patient groups confirm that operatively treated PCL tears are frequently caused by both traffic and sports. Cartilage and ligament injuries were more frequent in patients with PCL-R compared to ACL-R. Consequently, combined PCL and ACL tears should raise suspicion for concomitant knee lesions with clinical relevance during the operative treatment of these complex injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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.

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.

Adolescents Have Twice the Revision Rate of Young Adults After ACL Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Study From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified young age as a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision. However, few studies have looked separately at pediatric patients and adolescents with regard to outcomes after ACL reconstruction. PURPOSE: To determine whether patient age at ACL reconstruction affects the risk of undergoing revision surgery in young patients. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients aged 5 to 35 years who underwent a primary ACL reconstruction with a hamstring tendon autograft between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015, were included. The cohort was stratified into different age groups of pediatric patients, adolescents, and young adults to estimate patients with open, recently closed, and closed epiphyses, respectively. The primary endpoint was ACL revision. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess the ACL revision rate. The results were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 36,274 ACL reconstructions were registered during the study period. Of these, 2848 patients were included in the study: 47 pediatric patients (mean age, 13.6 years; range, 9-15 years), 522 adolescents (mean age, 17.4; range, 14-19 years), and 2279 young adults (mean age, 27.0; range, 20-35 years). A total of 31 patients (1.1%) underwent ACL revision within 2 years (0 pediatric patients, 9 adolescents [1.7%], and 22 young adults [1.0%]) and a total of 53 patients (2.6%) underwent ACL revision within 5 years (2 pediatric patients [6.9%], 15 adolescents [3.9%], and 36 young adults [2.2%]). The adolescent age group had a 1.91 times higher rate of ACL revision compared with the young adults (HR = 1.91 [95% CI, 1.13-3.21]; P = .015). There were no differences in revision rates between the pediatric age group and the young adults (HR = 2.93 [95% CI, 0.88-9.79]; P = .081). CONCLUSION: Adolescents had almost twice the rate of revision ACL reconstruction compared with young adults.

Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group.

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.

Treatment after ACL injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group.

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 Level of evidence: Level V.

Poor Associations Between Radiographic Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis and Patient-Reported Outcomes at 16 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic tibiofemoral (TF) osteoarthritis (OA) is common in patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction at long-term follow-up. The association between radiographic OA and patient-reported outcomes has not been thoroughly investigated. PURPOSE: To determine the association between radiographic TF OA and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores at 16 years after ACL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study was based on 2 randomized controlled studies comprising 193 patients who underwent unilateral ACL reconstruction. A long-term follow-up was carried out at 16.4 ± 1.7 years after surgery and included a radiographic examination of the knee and recording of PROM scores. Correlation analyses were performed between radiographic OA (Kellgren-Lawrence [K-L], Ahlbäck, and cumulative Fairbank grades) and the PROMs of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity scale. A linear univariable regression model was used to assess how the IKDC score differed with each grade of radiographic OA. RESULTS: Of 193 patients at baseline, 147 attended the long-term follow-up. At long-term follow-up, 44.2% of the patients had a K-L grade of ≥2 in the injured leg, compared with 6.8% in the uninjured leg. The mean IKDC score at follow-up was 71.2 ± 19.9. Higher grades of radiographic OA were significantly correlated with lower IKDC and Lysholm scores (r = -0.36 to -0.22). Patients with a K-L grade of 3 to 4 had significantly lower IKDC scores compared with patients without radiographic OA (K-L grade 0-1). Adjusted beta values were -15.7 (95% CI, -27.5 to -4.0; P = .0093; R 2 = 0.09) for K-L grade 3 and -25.2 (95% CI, -41.7 to -8.6; P = .0033; R 2 = 0.09) for K-L grade 4. CONCLUSION: There was a poor but significant correlation between radiographic TF OA and more knee-related limitations, as measured by the IKDC form and the Lysholm score. Patients with high grades of radiographic TF OA (K-L grade 3-4) had a statistically significant decrease in IKDC scores compared with patients without radiographic TF OA at 16 years after ACL reconstruction. No associations were found between radiographic TF OA and the Tegner activity level.

Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury clinical outcomes consensus group.

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 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. 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 PROs and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid- 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: V.

Patient-Reported and Quantitative Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autografts.

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/s2; 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/s2; 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.

Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group.

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.

Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group.

PURPOSE: 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 sports and their previous activity level. The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury RTS Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS and description of the RTS continuum, as well as to provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. 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 pre-injury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to return to sport, and ultimately return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along a 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 biologic assessment of healing and recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Timing of hip hemiarthroplasty and the influence on prosthetic joint infection.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research suggested that patients have increased risk of infection with increased time from presentation with a femoral neck fracture to treatment with a hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA). The purpose of this study was to determine if rates of prosthetic joint infections within 3 months of surgery was affected by the time from patient presentation with a femoral neck fracture to the time of treatment with HHA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acute hip fractures treated with HHA between 2005 and 2017 at three centres in Norway were enrolled in the study. Multi-trauma patients were excluded. Univariable analysis was performed to determine any significant effect of pre-operative waiting time on infection rate. Two pre-planned analyses dichotomizing pre-operative waiting time cut-offs were performed. RESULTS: There were 2300 patients with an average age of 82 (range, 48-100) years included of which 3.4% experienced a prosthetic joint infection within 3 months. The primary analysis found no significant difference in infection rate depending on time to surgery (OR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.94-1.20, p = 0.33)). The secondary analyses showed no significant differences in infection rates when comparing pre-operative waiting time of <24 hours vs ≥24 hours (OR = 0.92 (95% CI 0.58-1.46, p = 0.73)) and <48 hours vs ≥48 hours (OR = 1.39 (95% CI 0.81-2.38, p = 0.23)). CONCLUSION: Based off of a large retrospective Norwegian database of hip fractures there did not appear to be a significant difference in infection rate based on pre-operative wait time to surgery.

Use of the World Health Organization Checklist-Swedish Health Care Professionals' Experience: A Mixed-Method Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to describe health care professionals' experience of using the World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional mixed-method study, including health care professionals from two clinics at the same university hospital in the western part of Sweden was conducted. METHODS: Data were collected from one hundred ninety-six health care professionals using a self-administered questionnaire that contained 12 questions. The Mantel-Haenszel and Pearson χ2 tests were used for ordered and unordered categorical variables. The text analysis was inspired by Malterud. FINDINGS: The most statistically significant difference between the clinics related to the responsibility for administering the checklist (P = .0010) and always using the checklist in all emergency situations (P = .045). Among the health care professionals who were educated and trained in using checklists, 63% and 65.5% stated that the checklist was adapted to the department. Sixty four percent stated that the assistant nurses were responsible for implementing the checklist. The health care professionals also mentioned a large number of positive and negative aspects of using the WHO checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The health care professionals had difficulties using the WHO checklist in the Swedish health care system. More research is needed to determine why specific items are overlooked and whether these items could form the basis of the further elaboration of a modified checklist. An increased understanding of why the checklist is important, as well as updated knowledge on the content could produce greater compliance and thereby increase patient safety.

Comparison of concomitant injuries and patient-reported outcome in patients that have undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction-a national registry study.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery has been associated with inferior outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. However, this has rarely been investigated in a consecutive cohort limited to patients that have undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. This study aimed to assess differences in outcome and concomitant injuries between primary and revision ACL reconstruction in such a cohort, and to identify predictors of the patient-reported outcome after ACL revision. METHODS: Patients who had undergone both primary and revision ACL reconstruction were identified in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients aged 13-49 years with hamstring tendon primary ACL reconstruction and data on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) on at least one occasion (preoperative or one year postoperatively) at both surgeries were eligible. Concomitant injuries and the KOOS were compared between each patient's primary and revision ACL reconstruction. Linear regression analyses were performed to determine predictors of the one-year KOOS after ACL revision. RESULTS: A total of 1014 patients were included. Cartilage injuries increased at ACL revision (p < 0.001), as 23.0% had a cartilage injury at ACL revision that was not present at primary ACL reconstruction. The 1-year KOOS was lower after ACL revision compared with primary ACL reconstruction, with the largest difference in the KOOS sports and recreation (5.2 points, SD 32.2, p = 0.002). A posterolateral corner (PLC) injury at ACL revision was a negative predictor of KOOS, with the largest effect on the sports and recreation subscale (ß = - 29.20 [95% CI - 50.71; - 6.69], p = 0.011). The use of allograft for ACL revision was an independent predictor of a poorer KOOS QoL (ß = - 12.69 [95% CI - 21.84; - 3.55], p = 0.0066) and KOOS4 (ß = - 11.40 [95% CI - 19.24; - 3.57], p = 0.0044). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing ACL revision reported a 1-year outcome that was slightly inferior to the 1-year outcome after their primary ACL reconstruction. An ACL revision was associated with an increase in cartilage injuries. A PLC injury at ACL revision and the use of allograft for ACL revision predicted a clinically relevant poorer KOOS one year after ACL revision.

Graft Choice for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With a Concomitant Non-surgically Treated Medial Collateral Ligament Injury Does Not Influence the Risk of Revision.

PURPOSE: To compare the risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision and the patient-reported outcome after ACL reconstruction with a concomitant non-surgically treated medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury with regard to 3 ACL graft choices; the use of semitendinosus (ST), the use of semitendinosus-gracilis (ST-G), and the use of patellar tendon (PT) autograft. It was hypothesized that the use of ST-G would be associated with a greater risk of ACL revision and poorer patient-reported knee function. METHODS: Patients older than 15 years of age registered for a primary ACL reconstruction with a concomitant non-surgically treated MCL injury in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry were assessed for eligibility. Three groups were created according to ACL autograft choice; the ST, the ST-G, and the PT group. The primary outcomes were ACL revision and the 1- and 2-year Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), including the KOOS patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). Cox regression analysis was applied to determine the proportional hazard ratio (HR) of primary ACL reconstruction survival. The KOOS was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients (mean age 29.7 years, 42.4% women) were included. There was no difference in the risk of ACL revision for either the ST group (HR 1.354; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-2.702 or the PT group (HR 0.837; 95% CI 0.334-2.100), compared with the ST-G group. The ST group reported a greater mean 2-year KOOS sports and recreation (68.5, standard deviation [SD] 28.5) than the ST-G group (57.4 [SD 27.6], P = .010) and the PT group (54.1 [SD 30.3], P = .006). The ST group was superior in terms of achieving PASS in sports and recreation (55.3%; 95% CI 44.1-66.1%) compared with both the ST-G (37.4%; 95% CI 29.8-45.5%; P = .014) and the PT group (33.9%; 95% CI 22.1-47.4%; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ACL revision did not differ between HT and PT autografts in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with a non-surgically treated MCL injury. However, the use of ST-G was associated with poorer 2-year patient-reported knee function compared with the ST. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective comparative trial, Level III.

Strength in numbers? The fragility index of studies from the Scandinavian knee ligament registries.

PURPOSE: The fragility index (FI) is a metric to evaluate the robustness of statistically significant results. It describes the number of patients who would need to change from a non-event to an event to change a result from significant to non-significant. This systematic survey aimed to evaluate the feasibility of applying the FI to findings related to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the Scandinavian knee ligament registries. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and AMED databases were searched. Studies from the Scandinavian knee ligament registers were eligible if they reported a statistically significant result (p < 0.05) for any of the following dichotomous outcomes; ACL revision, contralateral ACL reconstruction or the presence of postoperative knee laxity. Only studies with a two-arm comparative analysis were included. Eligibility assessment, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The dichotomous analyses were stratified according to the grouping variable for the two comparative arms as follows; age, patient sex, activity at injury, graft choice, drilling technique, graft fixation, single- versus double-bundle, concomitant cartilage injury and country. The two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to calculate the FI of all statistically significant analyses. RESULTS: From 158 identified studies, 13 studies were included. They reported statistical significance for a total of 56 dichotomous analyses, of which all but two had been determined by a time-to-event analysis. The median sample size for the arms was 5540 (range 92-38,666). The mean FI for all 56 dichotomous analyses was 80.6 (median 34.5), which means that a mean of 80.6 patients were needed to change outcome status to generate a non-significant result instead of a significant one. Seventeen analyses (30.4%) immediately became non-significant when performing the two-sided Fisher's exact test and, therefore, had an FI of 0. The analyses related to age were the most robust, with a mean FI of 178.5 (median 116, range 1-1089). The mean FI of the other grouping variables ranged from 0.5 to 48.0. CONCLUSION: There was large variability in the FI in analyses from the Scandinavian knee ligament registries and almost one third of the analyses had an FI of zero. The FI is a rough measurement of robustness when applied to registry studies, however, future studies are needed to determine the most appropriate metric for robustness in registry studies. The use of the FI can provide clinicians with a deeper understanding of significant study results and promotes an evidence-based approach in the clinical care of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of prospective cohort studies, Level II.