METHODS: The European expert surgeons and scientists were divided into four groups to participate in this consensus. A \"literature group\" (four surgeons); \"steering group\" (14 surgeons and scientists); \"rating group\" (19 surgeons) and finally \"peer review group\" (51 representatives of the ESSKA-affiliated national societies from 27 countries). The steering group prepared eighteen question-answer sets. The quality of the answers received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientific support), to B (scientific presumption), C (low level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). These question-answer sets were then evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 to 9. The comments 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 question-answer sets were submitted to the peer review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to ratify the document.
RESULTS: The literature review for the diagnosis and preoperative planning of ACL revision revealed a rather low scientific quality. None of the 18 questions was graded A and six received a grade B. The mean rating of all the questions by the rating group was 8.4 ± 0.3. The questions and recommendations are listed below.
CONCLUSIONS: ACL revision surgery is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardisation. Therefore, this international consensus project is of great importance.
METHODS: II.
方法:欧洲专家外科医生和科学家被分成四组参与这一共识。“文献小组”(四名外科医生);“指导小组”(14名外科医生和科学家);“评级小组”(19名外科医生),最后是“同行评审小组”(来自27个国家的ESSKA附属国家协会的51名代表)。指导小组准备了18个问答集。回答的质量从A(高级科学支持),对B(科学推定),C(低级科学支持)或D(专家意见)。然后由评级组评估这些问答集。所有答案都从1到9分。指导小组纳入了评级小组的意见,并将共识第二次提交给评级小组。一旦指导和评级小组达成普遍共识,问答集已提交给同行评审小组.举行了协商一致所有成员的最后一次合并会议,以批准该文件。
结果:ACL翻修术的诊断和术前计划的文献综述显示,科学质量相当低。18个问题中没有一个是A级,六个获得了B级。评级组所有问题的平均评级为8.4±0.3。下面列出了问题和建议。
结论:ACL翻修手术是一个广泛争论的主题,有许多不同的观点和技术。文献显示,标准化水平很低。因此,这个国际共识项目非常重要。
方法:II.