Evaluating Basic Knee Arthroscopy Skills in Orthopaedic Trainees in a Limited-Resource Setting.

Orthopaedic training in Southern Africa is largely focused on trauma, although elective procedures, such as knee arthroscopy, are increasing. This is especially true in the private sector where most trainees will practice. The primary aim of this study was to assess the arthroscopic competency of orthopaedic trainees in a setting of limited resources. Methods: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted. Orthopaedic trainees of a Southern African university hospital performed basic arthroscopy on a knee model. Their surgical competency was assessed by 2 surgeons proficient in arthroscopy using the modified Basic Knee Arthroscopy Skill Scoring System (mBAKSSS). Results: A total of 16 trainees (12 male) were included (6 junior and 10 senior trainees). The median age of participants was 36 (34.8-37) years. The median mBAKSSS was 28.0 (20.3-32.5) but showed a large variability (12.0-42.5). The overall reliability was excellent with Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 and interclass correlation of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.97). Conclusions: The average knee arthroscopy proficiency of our trainees is comparable with that of international training programs, but there was great variability with inconsistent skills among the trainees. This calls for improved and reproducible arthroscopy training and skills transfer, exposure to procedures, and ongoing assessment. Level of Evidence: II (prospective observational cohort study).

Inclusion of open injuries in an updated Schenck classification of knee dislocations based on a global Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVES: Knee dislocations (KDs) are complex injuries defined as incongruity of the tibiofemoral joint, which leads to tears of two or more of the main stabilising knee ligaments, and they are often associated with damage to surrounding soft tissue or neurovascular structures. A classification system for these injuries should be simple and reproducible and allow communication among surgeons for surgical planning and outcome prediction. The aim of this study was to formulate a list of factors, prioritised by high-volume knee surgeons, that should be included in a KD classification system. METHODS: A global panel of orthopaedic knee surgery specialists participated in a Delphi process. The first survey employed 91 orthopaedic surgeons to generate a list of patient- and system-specific factors that should be included in a KD classification system that may affect surgical planning and outcomes. This list was subsequently prioritised by 27 identified experts (mean 15.3 years of experience) from Brazil (n = 9), USA (n = 6), South Africa (n = 4), India (n = 4), China (n = 2), and the United Kingdom (n = 2). The items were analysed to find factors that had at least 70% consensus for inclusion in a classification system. RESULTS: Of the 12 factors identified, four (33%) achieved at least 70% consensus for inclusion in a classification system. The factors deemed critical for inclusion in a classification system included vascular injuries (89%), common peroneal nerve injuries (78%), number of torn ligaments (78%), and open injuries (70%). CONCLUSION: Consensus for inclusion of various factors in a KD classification system was not easily achieved. The wide geographic distribution of participants provides diverse insight and makes the results of the study globally applicable. The most important factors to include in a classification system as determined by the Delphi technique were vascular injuries, common peroneal nerve injuries, number of torn ligaments, and open injuries. To date, the Schenck anatomic classification system most accurately identifies these patient variables with the addition of open injury classification. The authors propose to update the Schenck classification system with the inclusion of open injuries as an additional modifier, although this is only a small step in updating the classification, and further studies should evaluate the inclusion of more advanced imaging modalities. Future research should focus on integrating these factors into useful existing classification systems that are predictive of surgical treatment and patient outcomes.

The management of acute knee dislocations: A global survey of orthopaedic surgeons' strategies.

PURPOSE: Great variety and controversies surround the management strategies of acute multiligament knee injuries (aMKLIs) and no established guidelines exist for resource-limited practices. The aim of this study was to compare the management approach of acute knee dislocations (AKDs) by orthopedic surgeons from nations with different economic status. METHODS: This descriptive cross-sectional scenario-based survey compares different management strategies for aMLKIs of surgeons in developed economic nations (DEN) and emerging markets and developing nations (EMDN). The main areas of focus were operative versus non-operative management, timing and staging of surgery, graft choice and vascular assessment strategies. The members of the Societe Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopedique et de Traumatologie (SICOT) were approached to participate and information was collected regarding their demographics, experience, hospital setting and management strategies of aMLKIs. These were analyzed after categorizing participants into DEN and EMDN based on the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty-eight orthopedic surgeons from 47 countries participated in this study, 67 from DEN and 71 (51.4%) from EMDN. DEN surgeons had more years of experience and were older (p < 0.05). Surgeons from EMDN mostly worked in public sector hospitals, were general orthopedic surgeons and treated patients from a low-income background. They preferred conservative management and delayed reconstruction with autograft (p < 0.05) if surgery was necessary. Surgeons from DEN favored early, single stage arthroscopic ligament reconstruction. Selective Computerized Tomography Angiography (CTA) was the most preferred choice of arterial examination for both groups. Significantly more EMDN surgeons preferred clinical examination (p < 0.05) and duplex doppler scanning (p < 0.05) compared to DEN surgeons. More surgeons from EMDN did not have access to a physiotherapist for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of aMLKIs vary significantly based on the economic status of the country. Surgeons from DEN prefer early, single stage arthroscopic ligament reconstruction, while conservative management is favored in EMDN. Ligament surgery in EMDN is often delayed and staged. EMDN respondents utilize duplex doppler scanning and clinical examination more readily in their vascular assessment of aMLKIs. These findings highlight very distinct approaches to MLKIs in low-resource settings which are often neglected when guidelines are generated.

Open approaches for cruciate ligament reconstruction in knee dislocations: A technical note and case series.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic surgery is the gold standard for cruciate ligament reconstruction in multi-ligament knee injuries. However, hospitals in limited-resource settings often lack arthroscopic-trained surgeons or equipment. Open approaches for treating knee dislocations can overcome many of these limitations. METHODOLOGY: This study aims to describe techniques for open approaches in a supine patient to address the cruciate ligaments in multi-ligament knee injuries and to review associated complications and clinical outcomes in a retrospective case series. RESULTS: Ten patients with multi-ligament knee injuries who had undergone open cruciate ligament reconstruction between July 2016 and November 2018 were retrospectively identified. Open approaches were performed owing to the extravasation of arthroscopy fluid into the posterior compartment (3) or a large traumatic arthrotomy (7). Complications and patient-reported outcomes were analysed. Eight of the 10 patients were followed up at 10 months postoperatively (range, 5-23 months). None had iatrogenic neurovascular damage. Median outcomes scores were: visual analogue scale, 45 (range, 0-100); Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form, 81.4 (range, 75-100); Lysholm, 85 (range, 67-92). DISCUSSION: Open approaches were safe and useful in treating cruciate ligaments and should be considered in arthroscopy fluid extraversion and large traumatic arthrotomies.

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.

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

PURPOSE: To develop a statement on the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation concepts of posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries of the knee using a modified Delphi technique. METHODS: A working group of three individuals generated a list of statements relating to the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of PLC injuries to form the basis of an initial survey for rating by an international group of experts. The PLC expert group (composed of 27 experts throughout the world) was surveyed on three occasions to establish consensus on the inclusion/exclusion of each item. In addition to rating agreement, experts were invited to propose further items for inclusion or to suggest modifications of existing items at each round. Pre-defined criteria were used to refine item lists after each survey. Statements reaching consensus in round three were included within the final consensus document. RESULTS: Twenty-seven experts (100% response rate) completed three rounds of surveys. After three rounds, 29 items achieved consensus with over 75% agreement and less than 5% disagreement. Consensus was reached in 92% of the statements relating to diagnosis of PLC injuries, 100% relating to classification, 70% relating to treatment and in 88% of items relating to rehabilitation statements, with an overall consensus of 81%. CONCLUSIONS: This study has established a consensus statement relating to the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of PLC injuries. Further research is needed to develop updated classification systems, and better understand the role of non-invasive and minimally invasive approaches along with standardized rehabilitation protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Consensus of expert opinion, Level V.