Epidemiology of Injuries in Olympic Sports.

Injuries effect the performance of athletes. Severity of injuries is determined by time loss and sporting performance reduction. To treat injuries adequately, it is necessary to get an overview of varied injuries types in different sports disciplines. In a retrospective study 7.809 athletes from Germany, Switzerland and Austria competing in competitive or recreational levels of sports were included. Injury prevalence was highest in team sports (75 %), followed by combat (64 %), racquet (54 %) and track and field (51 %). Knee (28 %) and shoulder (14 %) were the most at risk joints. Time loss in sporting activity after injury was longest in the region of knee (26 weeks). Of all reported injuries, 48 % were accompanied by a reduced level of performance. The highest injury prevalence occurred in the year 2016 (45 %). More injuries occurred during training (58 %) compared to competition (42 %). Across Olympic disciplines, a large number of injuries occurred during training sessions. Injury frequency increased as the Olympic games drew closer. Knee and shoulder injuries were the most severe injuries with respect to time loss and reduction sporting performance.

Association of Remaining Anterior Knee Laxity With Inferior Outcomes After Revision ACL Reconstruction.

Background: The relationship between remaining anterior knee laxity and poorer clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may be underrated, and the criteria for failure of revision ACLR have not been defined. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate a possible association between remaining knee laxity and functional scores in patients after revision ACLR. We hypothesized that a postoperative side-to-side-difference (SSD) in knee laxity of ≥6 mm will be an objective parameter for failure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 200 patients (77 women and 123 men; mean age, 30.8 ± 11 years; range, 18-61 years) who underwent revision ACLR between 2016 and 2019 were evaluated; The mean follow-up period was 30.2 ± 9 months (range, 24-67 months). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to postoperative SSD (<3 mm, 3-5 mm, or ≥6 mm). Preoperative and postoperative outcome measures (Lachman, pivot shift, visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were compared between the groups. Results: Of the 200 patients, 74% (n = 148) had a postoperative SSD of <3 mm at the latest follow-up, 19.5% (n = 39) had a postoperative SSD of 3 to 5 mm, and 6.5% (n = 13) had a postoperative SSD of ≥6 mm. Patients in all groups saw significant pre- to postoperative reductions in positive Lachman and pivot-shift tests as well as significant improvements in VAS pain, Lysholm, and Tegner scores (P < .001 for all). All postoperative functional scores of the patients with SSDs of <3 mm and 3-5 mm were significantly increased compared with those of patients with an SSD of ≥6 mm (P≤ .01 for all). Conclusion: In patients following revision ACLR, anterior and rotational knee laxity were successfully reduced while increasing postoperative functional outcomes. A remaining postoperative SSD of ≥6 mm was associated with inferior patient outcomes compared with an SSD <6 mm. An SSD of ≥6 mm represents an objective parameter in the definition of failure of revision ACLR.

Management after acute injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Part 3: Recommendation on surgical treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this consensus project was to give recommendations regarding surgical treatment of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injured patient. METHODS: For this consensus process, an expert, steering and rating group was formed. In an initial online meeting, the steering group, together with the expert group, formed various key topic complexes for which multiple questions were formulated. For each key topic, a structured literature search was performed by the steering group. The results of the literature review were sent to the rating group with the option to give anonymous comments until a final consensus voting was performed. Sufficient consensus was defined as 80% agreement. RESULTS: During this consensus process, 30 topics regarding the surgical management and technique of ACL reconstruction were identified. The literature search for each key question resulted in 30 final statements. Of these 30 final statements, all achieved consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process has shown that surgical treatment of ACL injury is a complex process. Various surgical factors influence patient outcomes. The proposed treatment algorithm can be used as a decision aid for the surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Return to sport after conservative treatment of elbow dislocation in judoka.

BACKGROUND: Injuries to the elbow are frequent in judo combat, but studies on down-time and effect on performance after conservative treatments are rare. This issue is particularly relevant for elbow dislocations in high-performance patients such as elite athletes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate (1) time-loss and (2) the regained level of performance in judoka after conservative treatment of simple elbow dislocation. METHODS: In cooperation with the European Judo Union, judoka were asked to complete a 139-item survey regarding elbow injuries they suffered during their career. Besides demographics, injury data, diagnosis and treatment options, the athletes were asked about down-time and reductions in performance level. This study enrolled 108 judoka with conservative treatment of elbow dislocation out of a population of 5426 volunteers. RESULTS: 69% (n=74) reported a time-loss of less than three months; 6% reported a time-loss of more than six months. The majority (68%, n=73) reported that they had returned to their previous performance level, while 22% (n=24) suffered from a slightly reduced level of performance. In the subgroup of international and national athletes (n=54), 63% returned to judo after less than three months, with 72% achieving the same level and 15% reporting a slightly reduced performance level. Level of performance and time lost after conservative treatment for elbow dislocations were comparable for male and female judoka. CONCLUSION: Approximately two out of three judoka returned to the same level of performance after three months of down-time after undergoing conservative therapy for simple elbow dislocations. Despite the high performance level of the study population, conservative treatment of simple elbow dislocation resulted in satisfactory outcomes. The presented data can guide medical professionals and competitive-level contact-sport athletes with respect to expectations in the process of returning to sport.

Comparison of Onlay Anchor Fixation Versus Transosseous Fixation for Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis During Revision ACL Reconstruction.

Background: There is evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the Lemaire technique for lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the best fixation technique is unknown. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of 2 fixation techniques after revision ACLR: (1) onlay anchor fixation, which would avoid tunnel conflict and physis injury, and (2) transosseous tightening and interference screw fixation. Pain at the area of LET fixation was also assessed. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a retrospective 2-center study of patients with first-time revision ACLR and either LET with anchor fixation (aLET) with a 2.4-mm suture anchor or LET with transosseous fixation (tLET). Outcomes at minimum 12-month follow-up were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale for pain at the LET fixation area, Tegner score, and anterior tibial translation (ATT). A subgroup analysis within the aLET group investigated passing the graft over or under the lateral collateral ligament (LCL). Results: In total, 52 patients were included (26 patients in each group); the mean ± SD follow-up was 13.7 ± 3.4 months. No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups with respect to patient-reported outcome scores, clinical examination, or instrumented testing (side-to-side difference in ATT at 30° of flexion; aLET, 1.5 ± 2.5 mm; tLET, 1.6 ± 1.7 mm). Clinical failure was detected in 1 patient with aLET and none with tLET. Subgroup analysis revealed a small, nonsignificant flexion deficit in knees in which the iliotibial band strand was passed under (n = 42) or over (n = 10) the LCL. No clinically relevant tenderness was detected at the area of LET fixation in any group (aLET, 0.6 ± 1.3; tLET, 0.9 ± 1.7; over the LCL, 0.2 ± 0.6; under the LCL, 0.9 ± 1.6). Conclusion: Onlay anchor fixation and transosseous fixation of the LET were equivalent with respect to outcome scores and instrumented ATT testing. Clinically, there were minor differences in passage of the LET graft over or under the LCL.

Management after acute injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), part 2: management of the ACL-injured patient.

PURPOSE: The aim of this consensus project was to create a treatment algorithm for the management of the ACL-injured patient which can serve as an aid in a shared decision-making process. METHODS: For this consensus process, a steering and a rating group were formed. In an initial face-to-face meeting, the steering group, together with the expert group, formed various key topic complexes for which various questions were formulated. For each key topic, a structured literature search was performed by the steering group. The results of the literature review were sent to the rating group with the option to give anonymous comments until a final consensus voting was performed. Sufficient consensus was defined as 80% agreement. RESULTS: During this consensus process, 15 key questions were identified. The literature search for each key question resulted in 24 final statements. Of these 24 final statements, all achieved consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process has shown that ACL rupture is a complex injury, and the outcome depends to a large extent on the frequently concomitant injuries (meniscus and/or cartilage damage). These additional injuries as well as various patient-specific factors should play a role in the treatment decision. The present treatment algorithm represents a decision aid within the framework of a shared decision-making process for the ACL-injured patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Management after acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Part 1: ACL reconstruction has a protective effect on secondary meniscus and cartilage lesions.

PURPOSE: The aim of this consensus project was to validate which endogenous and exogenous factors contribute to the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and to what extent ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction can prevent secondary damage to the knee joint. Based on these findings, an algorithm for the management after ACL rupture should be established. METHODS: The consensus project was initiated by the Ligament Injuries Committee of the German Knee Society (Deutsche Kniegesellschaft, DKG). A modified Delphi process was used to answer scientific questions. This process was based on key topic complexes previously formed during an initial face-to-face meeting of the steering group with the expert group. For each key topic, a comprehensive review of available literature was performed by the steering group. The results of the literature review were sent to the rating group with the option to give anonymous comments until a final consensus voting was performed. Consensus was defined a-priori as eighty percent agreement. RESULTS: Of the 17 final statements, 15 achieved consensus, and 2 have not reached consensus. Results of the consensus were summarized in an algorithm for the management after ACL rupture (infographic/Fig. 2). CONCLUSION: This consensus process has shown that the development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis is a complex multifactorial process. Exogenous (primary and secondary meniscus lesions) and endogenous factors (varus deformity) play a decisive role. Due to the complex interplay of these factors, an ACL reconstruction cannot always halt post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the knee. However, there is evidence that ACL reconstruction can prevent secondary joint damage such as meniscus lesions and that the success of meniscus repair is higher with simultaneous ACL reconstruction. Therefore, we recommend ACL reconstruction in case of a combined injury of the ACL and a meniscus lesion which is suitable for repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

German S2e-Guideline "Knee Dislocation". / S2e-Leitlinie "Kniegelenkluxation".

Knee dislocation is a devastating form of multiligament injury of the knee. Due to its high complexity, there is a large number of different diagnostic and treatment strategies. With the aim of providing evidence-based treatment recommendations, the S2e guideline on knee dislocation is aimed at all professional groups involved in diagnostics and therapy (orthopaedic and trauma surgeons, physiotherapists, outpatient/inpatient surgeons, sports physicians, etc.) as well as those affected (patients with knee dislocation) and service providers (health insurance companies, pension insurance companies). In addition to the presentation of conceptual differences between the injury entities, this includes the special features of diagnostic testing, options for conservative and surgical therapy as well as aspects of follow-up treatment - against the background of the interdisciplinary treatment approach to a severe knee injury.

Epidemiology of Injuries in Olympic Sports.

Injuries effect the performance of athletes. Severity of injuries is determined by time loss and sporting performance reduction. To treat injuries adequately, it is necessary to get an overview of varied injuries types in different sports disciplines. In a retrospective study 7.809 athletes from Germany, Switzerland and Austria competing in competitive or recreational levels of sports were included. Injury prevalence was highest in team sports (75%), followed by combat (64%), racquet (54%) and track and field (51%). Knee (28%) and shoulder (14%) were the most at risk joints. Time loss in sporting activity after injury was longest in the region of knee (26 weeks). Of all reported injuries, 48% were accompanied by a reduced level of performance. The highest injury prevalence occurred in the year 2016 (45%). More injuries occurred during training (58%) compared to competition (42%). Across Olympic disciplines, a large number of injuries occurred during training sessions. Injury frequency increased as the Olympic games drew closer. Knee and shoulder injuries were the most severe injuries with respect to time loss and reduction sporting performance.

Clinical results after very early, early and late arthroscopic arthrolysis of the knee.

PURPOSE: Impaired patient outcome can be directly related to a loss of motion of the knee following surgical procedures. If conservative therapy fails, arthroscopic arthrolysis is an effective procedure to improve range of motion (ROM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing very early (< 3 months), early (3 to 6 months), and late (> 6 months) arthroscopic arthrolysis of the knee. METHODS: With a follow-up on average at 35.1 ± 15.2 (mean ± SD, 24 to 87) months, 123 patients with post-operative motion loss (> 10° extension deficit/ < 90° of flexion) were included between 2013 and 2018 in the retrospective study, while eight patients were lost to follow-up. A total of 115 patients were examined with a minimum follow-up of two years. Twenty percent (n = 23) of patients of this study population had a post-operative motion loss after distal femoral fracture, 10.4% (n = 12) after tibial head fracture, 57.4% (n = 66) after anterior/posterior cruciate ligament (ACL/PCL) reconstruction, 8.7% (n = 10) after infection of the knee, and 3.4% (n = 4) after patella fracture. Thirty-seven patients received very early (< 3 months, mean 1.8 months) arthroscopic arthrolysis, and 37 had early (3 to 6 months, mean 4.3 months) and 41 late (> 6 months, mean 9.8 months) arthroscopic arthrolysis after primary surgery. RESULTS: The average ROM increased from 73.9° before to 131.4° after arthroscopic arthrolysis (p < 0.001). In the group of very early (< 3 months) arthroscopic arthrolysis 76% (n = 28) of the patients had a normal ROM (extension/flexion 0/140°), in the group of early (3-6 months) arthrolysis 68% (n = 25) of the patients and in the group of late arthrolysis 41.5% (n = 17) of the patients showed a normal ROM after surgery (p = 0.005). The total ROM after arthrolysis was also significantly increased in the group of very early and early arthrolysis (136.5° and 135.3° vs. 123.7°, p < 0.001). A post-operative flexion deficit occurred significantly less in the group of very early and early arthroscopic arthrolysis compared to the late arthroscopic arthrolysis (3.9° and 4.2° vs. 16.6°, p < 0.001). Patients treated with very early (< 3 months) and early (3 to 6 months) showed a significantly increased post-operative Tegner score of 4.8 ± 1 and 4.7 ± 1.1 compared to 3.8 ± 1.1 in the group of late arthroscopic arthrolysis (> 6 months, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An arthroscopic arthrolysis is highly effective and leads to good to excellent mid-term results. An early arthroscopic arthrolysis within 6 months after primary surgery leads to significantly improved ROM and functional scores compared to the late arthrolysis (> 6 months).

Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis in revision ACL reconstruction does not influence the outcome of patients with low-grade anterior knee laxity.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited evidence on the indications of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in revision ACLR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the LET in patients with revision ACLR with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, 78 patients who underwent revision ACLR with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity [≤ 5 mm side-to-side difference (SSD)] were included in the retrospective cohort study. An additional modified Lemaire tenodesis was performed in 23 patients during revision ACLR and patients were clinically examined with a minimum of 2 years after revision surgery. Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR was defined as SSD in Rolimeter® testing ≥ 5 mm or pivot-shift grade 2/3. RESULTS: In total, failure of the revision ACLR occurred in 11.5% (n = 9) of the cases at a mean follow-up of 28.7 ± 8.8 (24-67) months. Patients with an additional LET and revision ACLR did not show a significantly reduced failure rate (13% vs. 11%) or an improved clinical outcome according to the postoperative functional scores or pain in regards to patients with an isolated revision ACLR (Tegner 5.7 ± 1.3 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, n.s.; IKDC 77.5 ± 16.2 vs. 80.1 ± 14.9, n.s., Lysholm 81.9 ± 14.2 vs. 83.8 ± 14.5, n.s.; VAS 1.9 ± 2.2 vs. 1.2 ± 1.7, n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: An additional LET in patients with revision ACLR with low-grade anterior knee laxity does not influence patient-related outcomes or failure rates. Subjects with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity may not benefit from a LET in revision ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The treatment of posterolateral knee instability with combined arthroscopic popliteus bypass and PCL reconstruction provides good-to-excellent clinical results in the mid-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who were treated with an arthroscopic popliteus bypass (PB) technique, in cases of a posterolateral rotational instability (PLRI) and a concomitant posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury of the knee. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series in which 23 patients were clinically evaluated after a minimum of 2 years following arthroscopic PB and combined PCL reconstruction. Lysholm, Tegner and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores as well as visual analog scales (VAS) for joint function and pain were evaluated. Posterior laxity was objectified with stress radiography and a Rolimeter examination. Rotational instability was graded with the dial test. RESULTS: 23 patients were available for follow-up, 46.0 ± 13.6 months after surgery. The median time interval from the initial injury to the surgery was 6.0 (3.5;10.5) months. The postoperative Lysholm Score was 95.0 (49-100); the Tegner Score changed from 6.0 (3-10) before the injury to 5.0 (0-10) at the follow-up examination (p = 0.013). The side-to-side difference on stress radiography (SSD) of posterior translation changed from 10.4 (6.6-14.8) mm before the injury to 4.0 (0.2-5.7) mm postoperatively (p < 0.01). Rotational instability was reduced to grade A (82.6%) or B (17.4%) (IKDC). The Rolimeter SSD was 2.0 (0-3) mm at the follow-up examination. VAS Function 0 (0-5), VAS pain 0 (0-6). CONCLUSIONS: The arthroscopic PB graft technique provided good-to-excellent clinical results in the mid-term follow-up in patients with type A PLRI and concomitant PCL injury. However, an exact differentiation of lateral, rotational and dorsal instabilities of posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries is crucial, for the correct choice of therapy, as cases with lateral instabilities require more complex reconstruction techniques. Arthroscopic posterolateral corner reconstruction is a safe procedure with a high success rate in the mid-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Double-Layered Quadriceps Tendon Autografts Provide Lower Failure Rates and Improved Clinical Results Compared With Hamstring Tendon Grafts in Revision ACL Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: We developed a quadriceps-tendon graft technique using a double-layered, partial-thickness, soft tissue quadriceps tendon graft (dlQUAD) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). This technique allows simple femoral loop button fixation and a limited harvest depth of the quadriceps tendon. PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing revision ACLR using the dlQUAD technique compared with a hamstring tendon graft (HT). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 114 patients who underwent revision ACLR between 2017 and 2018 were included in this retrospective case series. At a mean follow-up of 26.9 ± 3.7 months (range, 24-36), 89 patients (dlQUAD: n = 43, HT: n = 46) were clinically examined. In addition, patients completed the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR was defined as a side-to-side difference (SSD) in Rolimeter testing ≥5 mm or a pivot-shift grade of 2 or 3. RESULTS: Nine patients (10.1%) were identified with a failed revision ACLR. There was a significantly lower failure rate with dlQUAD versus the HT group (2.3% vs 17.4%; P = .031). The mean postoperative SSD was significantly less in the dlQUAD group (1.3 ± 1.3 mm [range, 0-5] vs 1.8 ± 2.2 mm [range, 0-9]; P = .043). At the latest follow-up, Tegner and IKDC scores significantly improved in the dlQUAD group compared with the HT group (Tegner: 5.8 ± 1.8 vs 5.6 ± 1.5; P = .043; IKDC: 83.8 ± 12.2 vs 78.6 ± 16.8; P = .037). The pain VAS score was also significantly reduced in the dlQUAD group compared with the HT group (0.9 ± 1.1 vs 1.6 ± 2.0; P = .014). CONCLUSION: The dlQUAD and HT techniques both demonstrated significant improvement of preoperative knee laxity and satisfactory patient-reported outcome measures after revision ACLR. Compared with the HT grafts, the dlQUAD technique showed lower failure rates and small increases in Tegner and IKDC scores.

Treatment of Combined Injuries to the ACL and the MCL Complex: A Consensus Statement of the Ligament Injury Committee of the German Knee Society (DKG).

BACKGROUND: Different indications and treatment options for combined injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament complex (MCL) are not clearly defined. PURPOSE: To perform a modified Delphi process with the Committee for Ligament Injuries of the German Knee Society (DKG) in order to structure and optimize the process of treating a combined injury to the ACL and MCL. STUDY DESIGN: Consensus statement. METHODS: Scientific questions and answers were created based on a comprehensive literature review using the central registers for controlled studies of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane including the terms medial collateral ligament, anterior cruciate ligament, MCL, ACL, and outcome used in various combinations. The obtained statements passed 3 cycles of a modified Delphi process during which each was readjusted and rated according to the available evidence (grades A-E) by the members of the DKG Ligament Injuries Committee and its registered guests. RESULTS: The majority of answers, including several questions with >1 graded answer, were evaluated as grade E (n = 16) or C (n = 10), indicating that a low level of scientific evidence was available for most of the answers. Only 5 answers were graded better than C: 3 answers with a grade of A and 2 answers with a grade of B. Only 1 answer was evaluated as grade D. An agreement of >80% (range, 83%-100%) among committee members was achieved for all statements. CONCLUSION: The results of this modified Delphi process offer a guideline for standardized patient care in cases of combined injuries to the ACL and MCL.

Lower Failure Rates and Improved Patient Outcome Due to Reconstruction of the MCL and Revision ACL Reconstruction in Chronic Medial Knee Instability.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant lesion of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) is associated with a greater risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare two medial stabilization techniques in patients with revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and concomitant chronic medial knee instability. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: In a retrospective study, we included 53 patients with revision ACLR and chronic grade 2 medial knee instability to compare medial surgical techniques (MCL reconstruction [n = 17] vs repair [n = 36]). Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR (primary aim) was defined as side-to-side difference in Rolimeter testing ≥5 mm or pivot-shift grade ≥2. Clinical parameters and postoperative functional scores (secondary aim) were evaluated with a mean ± SD follow-up of 28.8 ± 9 months (range, 24-69 months). RESULTS: Revision ACLR was performed in 53 patients with additional grade 2 medial instability (men, n = 33; women, n = 20; mean age, 31.3 ± 12 years). Failure occurred in 5.9% (n = 1) in the MCL reconstruction group, whereas 36.1% (n = 13) of patients with MCL repair showed a failed revision ACLR (P = .02). In the postoperative assessment, the anterior side-to-side difference in Rolimeter testing was significantly reduced (1.5 ± 1.9 mm vs 2.9 ± 2.3 mm; P = .037), and medial knee instability occurred significantly less (18% vs 50%; P = .025) in the MCL reconstruction group than in the MCL repair group. In the logistic regression, patients showed a 9-times elevated risk of failure when an MCL repair was performed (P = .043). Patient-reported outcomes were increased in the MCL reconstruction group as compared with MCL repair, but only the Lysholm score showed a significant difference (Tegner, 5.6 ± 1.9 vs 5.3 ± 1.6; International Knee Documentation Committee, 80.3 ± 16.6 vs 73.6 ± 16.4; Lysholm, 82.9 ± 13.6 vs 75.1 ± 21.1 [P = .047]). CONCLUSION: MCL reconstruction led to lower failure rates in patients with combined revision ACLR and chronic medial instability as compared with MCL repair. MCL reconstruction was superior to MCL repair, as lower postoperative anterior instability, an increased Lysholm score, and less medial instability were present after revision ACLR. MCL repair was associated with a 9-times greater risk of failure.

Return to competition after anterior cruciate ligament injuries in world class judoka.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to quantify how the return to competition after an anterior cruciate ligament rupture in Judo is perceived by athletes as compared to doctors and physiotherapists. Is there a difference between the perspectives of doctors and physiotherapists and athletes regarding surgery, time loss due to injury, or the level of performance after the injury? Which functional tests are used to define when or if athletes are ready for the return to competition? METHODS: A survey-based retrospective study design with two surveys regarding the treatment methods of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture was established: one version for athletes and one for doctors and physiotherapists. Surveys were equivalent for both populations despite the athletes' individual data. Variance analysis was applied to assess if statistically meaningful differences exist between the two groups. RESULTS: From 232 judoka interviewed during the Junior World Judo Championships 2017, 23 suffered an anterior cruciate ligament rupture in the last 2 years. As high as 52% underwent surgery. According to doctors and physiotherapists, 82% of athletes underwent reconstructive surgeries. Athletes returned to competition after 5.5 months, whereas doctors and physiotherapists assumed a time loss of 8.4 months. Only 44% of the doctors and physiotherapists used functional tests like hop tests for defining return to competition and 22% used mental tests. When asking athletes, the use of hop tests (8%) and mental tests (0%) was even lower. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated for the first time significant discrepancies between the medical treatment regarding the recommendations of doctors and physiotherapists compared to athletes behavior. To support a conclusive statement, we should encourage the doctors and physiotherapists to use functional test batteries for the decision-making process regarding return to competition.

The Popliteus Bypass provides superior biomechanical properties compared to the Larson technique in the reconstruction of combined posterolateral corner and posterior cruciate ligament injury.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of the popliteus bypass against the Larson technique for the reconstruction of a combined posterolateral corner and posterior cruciate ligament injury. METHODS: In 18 human cadaver knees, the kinematics for 134 N posterior loads, 10 Nm varus loads, and 5 Nm external rotational loads in 0°, 20°, 30°, 60,° and 90° of knee flexion were measured using a robotic and optical tracking system. The (1) posterior cruciate ligament, (2) meniscofibular/-tibial fibers, (3) popliteofibular ligament (PFL), (4) popliteotibial fascicle, (5) popliteus tendon, and (6) lateral collateral ligament were cut, and the measurements were repeated. The knees underwent posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and were randomized into two groups. Group PB (Popliteus Bypass; n = 9) underwent a lateral collateral ligament and popliteus bypass reconstruction and was compared to Group FS (Fibular Sling; n = 9) which underwent the Larson technique. RESULTS: Varus angulation, posterior translation, and external rotation increased after dissection (p < 0.01). The varus angulation was effectively reduced in both groups and did not significantly differ from the intact knee. No significant differences were found between the groups. Posterior translation was reduced by both techniques (p < 0.01), but none of the groups had restored stability to the intact state (p < 0.02), with the exception of group PB at 0°. No significant differences were found between the two groups. The two techniques revealed major differences in their abilities to reduce external rotational instability. Group PB had less external rotational instability compared to Group FS (p < 0.03). Only Group PB had restored rotational instability compared to the state of the intact knee (p < 0.04) at all degrees of flexion. CONCLUSION: The popliteus bypass for posterolateral reconstruction has superior biomechanical properties related to external rotational stability compared to the Larson technique. Therefore, the popliteus bypass may have a positive influence on the clinical outcome. This needs to be proven through clinical trials.

The posteromedial corner of the knee: an international expert consensus statement on diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: To establish recommendations for diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of posteromedial corner (PMC) knee injuries using a modified Delphi technique. METHODS: A list of statements concerning the diagnosis, classification, treatment and rehabilitation of PMC injuries was created by a working group of four individuals. Using a modified Delphi technique, a group of 35 surgeons with expertise in PMC injuries was surveyed, on three occasions, to establish consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of each statement. Experts were encouraged to propose further suggestions or modifications following each round. Pre-defined criteria were used to refine item lists after each survey. The final document included statements reaching consensus in round three. RESULTS: Thirty-five experts had a 100% response rate for all three rounds. A total of 53 items achieved over 75% consensus. The overall rate of consensus was 82.8%. Statements pertaining to PMC reconstruction and those regarding the treatment of combined cruciate and PMC injuries reached 100% consensus. Consensus was reached for 85.7% of the statements on anatomy of the PMC, 90% for those relating to diagnosis, 70% relating to classification, 64.3% relating to the treatment of isolated PMC injuries, and 83.3% relating to rehabilitation after PMC reconstruction. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi technique was applied to generate an expert consensus statement concerning the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation practices for PMC injuries of the knee with high levels of expert agreement. Though the majority of statements pertaining to anatomy, diagnosis, and rehabilitation reached consensus, there remains inconsistency as to the optimal approach to treating isolated PMC injuries. Additionally, there is a need for improved PMC injury classification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.