%0 Journal Article
%T Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part I-diagnostics and preoperative planning.
%A Tischer T
%A Beaufilis P
%A Becker R
%A Ahmad SS
%A Bonomo M
%A Dejour D
%A Eriksson K
%A Filardo G
%A Feucht MJ
%A Grassi A
%A Wilson A
%A Menetrey J
%A Pujol N
%A Rathcke M
%A Seil R
%A Strauss MJ
%A Condello V
%J Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
%V 31
%N 11
%D Nov 2023 2
%M 36322180
%F 4.114
%R 10.1007/s00167-022-07214-w
%X <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in ACL revision.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>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.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>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.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>II.