» There is no clear agreement on the optimal timing or superior type of fixation for medial collateral ligament (MCL) tears in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.» Anatomic healing of medial knee structures is critical to maintain native knee kinematics, supported by biomechanical studies that demonstrate increased graft laxity and residual valgus rotational instability after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) alone in the setting of concomitant ACL/MCL injury.» Historically, most surgeons have favored treating acute combined ACL/MCL tears conservatively with MCL rehabilitation, followed by stress radiographs at 6 weeks after injury to assess for persistent valgus laxity before performing delayed ACLR to allow for full knee range of motion, and reduce the risk of postoperative stiffness and arthrofibrosis.» However, with the advancement of early mobilization and aggressive physical therapy protocols, acute surgical management of MCL tears in the setting of ACL injury can have benefits of avoiding residual laxity and further intra-articular damage, as well as earlier return to sport.» Residual valgus laxity from incomplete MCL healing at the time of ACLR should be addressed surgically, as this can lead to an increased risk of ACLR graft failure.» The treatment of combined ACL/MCL injuries requires an individualized approach, including athlete-specific factors such as level and position of play, timing of injury related to in-season play, contact vs. noncontact sport, and anticipated longevity, as well as consideration of the tear pattern, acuity of injury, tissue quality, and surgeon familiarity with the available techniques.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision.
METHODS: Part 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been 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 then held to ratify the document.
RESULTS: The review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + - 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article.
CONCLUSIONS: ACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults.
METHODS: Level II.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the ESSKA 2022 consensus Part III was to develop patient-focused, contemporary, evidence-based, guidelines on the indications for revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery (ACLRev).
METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to provide recommendations on the appropriateness of surgical treatment versus conservative treatment in different clinical scenarios based on current scientific evidence in conjunction with expert opinion. A core panel defined the clinical scenarios with a moderator and then guided a panel of 17 voting experts through the RAM tasks. Through a two-step voting process, the panel established a consensus as to the appropriateness of ACLRev for each scenario based on a nine-point Likert scale (in which a score in the range 1-3 was considered \'inappropriate\', 4-6 \'uncertain\', and 7-9 \'appropriate\').
RESULTS: The criteria used to define the scenarios were: age (18-35 years vs 36-50 years vs 51-60 years), sports activity and expectation (Tegner 0-3 vs 4-6 vs 7-10), instability symptoms (yes vs no), meniscus status (functional vs repairable vs non-functional meniscus), and osteoarthritis (OA) (Kellgren-Lawrence [KL] grade 0-I-II vs grade III). Based on these variables, a set of 108 clinical scenarios was developed. ACLRev was considered appropriate in 58%, inappropriate in 12% (meaning conservative treatment is indicated), and uncertain in 30%. Experts considered ACLRev appropriate for patients with instability symptoms, aged ≤ 50 years, regardless of sports activity level, meniscus status, and OA grade. Results were much more controversial in patients without instability symptoms, while higher inappropriateness was related to scenarios with older age (51-60 years), low sporting expectation, non-functional meniscus, and knee OA (KL III).
CONCLUSIONS: This expert consensus establishes guidelines as to the appropriateness of ACLRev based on defined criteria and provides a useful reference for clinical practice in determining treatment indications.
METHODS: II.

BACKGROUND: The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance formed a secondary prevention task group to develop a consensus on secondary prevention recommendations to reduce the risk of osteoarthritis after a knee injury.
UNASSIGNED: Our goal was to provide clinicians with secondary prevention recommendations that are intended to reduce the risk of osteoarthritis after a person has sustained an anterior cruciate ligament injury. Specifically, this manuscript describes our methods, literature reviews, and dissenting opinions to elaborate on the rationale for our recommendations and to identify critical gaps.
METHODS: Consensus process.
METHODS: Virtual video conference calls and online voting.
METHODS: The Secondary Prevention Task Group consisted of 29 members from various clinical backgrounds.
METHODS: The group initially convened online in August 2020 to discuss the target population, goals, and key topics. After a second call, the task group divided into 9 subgroups to draft the recommendations and supportive text for crucial content areas. Twenty-one members completed 2 rounds of voting and revising the recommendations and supportive text between February and April 2021. A virtual meeting was held to review the wording of the recommendations and obtain final votes. We defined consensus as >80% of voting members supporting a proposed recommendation.
RESULTS: The group achieved consensus on 15 of 16 recommendations. The recommendations address patient education, exercise and rehabilitation, psychological skills training, graded-exposure therapy, cognitive-behavioral counseling (lacked consensus), outcomes to monitor, secondary injury prevention, system-level social support, leveraging technology, and coordinated care models.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement reflects information synthesized from an interdisciplinary group of experts based on the best available evidence from the literature or personal experience. We hope this document raises awareness among clinicians and researchers to take steps to mitigate the risk of osteoarthritis after an anterior cruciate ligament injury.

After an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, people need secondary prevention strategies to identify osteoarthritis at its earliest stages so that interventions can be implemented to halt or slow the progression toward its long-term burden. The Osteoarthritis Action Alliance formed an interdisciplinary Secondary Prevention Task Group to develop a consensus on recommendations to provide clinicians with secondary prevention strategies that are intended to reduce the risk of osteoarthritis after a person has an ACL injury. The group achieved consensus on 15 out of 16 recommendations that address patient education, exercise and rehabilitation, psychological skills training, graded-exposure therapy, cognitive-behavioral counseling (lacked consensus), outcomes to monitor, secondary injury prevention, system-level social support, leveraging technology, and coordinated care models. We hope this statement raises awareness among clinicians and researchers on the importance of taking steps to mitigate the risk of osteoarthritis after an ACL injury.

暂无摘要。

Considering the frequency of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, optimal management of these injuries was the subject of a 2022 clinical practice guideline update from The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) with input from representatives from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America, the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. The eight recommendations and seven options to guide orthopaedic surgeons and other physicians managing patients with these anterior cruciate ligament injuries are based on the best current available evidence. The cases presented in this article are examples designed to demonstrate the clinical application of these guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the effectiveness of management strategies and rehabilitation approaches for knee joint structural and molecular biomarker outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and/or meniscal tear. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SPORTDiscus databases from their inception up to November 3, 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of management strategies or rehabilitation approaches for structural/molecular biomarkers of knee joint health following ACL and/or meniscal tear. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 5 RCTs (9 papers) with primary ACL tear (n = 365). Two RCTs compared initial management strategies (rehabilitation plus early vs optional delayed ACL surgery), reporting on structural biomarkers (radiographic osteoarthritis, cartilage thickness, meniscal damage) in 5 papers and molecular biomarkers (inflammation, cartilage turnover) in 1 paper. Three RCTs compared different post-ACL reconstruction (ACLR) rehabilitation approaches (high vs low intensity plyometric exercises, accelerated vs nonaccelerated rehabilitation, continuous passive vs active motion), reporting on structural biomarkers (joint space narrowing) in 1 paper and molecular biomarkers (inflammation, cartilage turnover) in 2 papers. RESULTS: There were no differences in structural or molecular biomarkers between post-ACLR rehabilitation approaches. One RCT comparing initial management strategies demonstrated that rehabilitation plus early ACLR was associated with greater patellofemoral cartilage thinning, elevated inflammatory cytokine response, and reduced incidence of medial meniscal damage over 5 years compared to rehabilitation with no/delayed ACLR. CONCLUSION: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that different initial management strategies (rehabilitation plus early vs optional delayed ACL surgery) but not postoperative rehabilitation approaches may influence the incidence of meniscal damage, patellofemoral cartilage loss and cytokine concentrations over 5 years post-ACL tear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(4):1-22. Epub: 20 February 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11576.

This guideline was developed to inform clinical practice on rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and was performed in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A Guideline Development Group systematically searched and reviewed evidence using randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions and guide clinicians and patients on the content of the optimal rehabilitation protocol after ACLR.The guideline targets patients during rehabilitation after ACLR and investigates the effectiveness of the available interventions to the physiotherapist, alone or in combination (eg, exercise, modalities, objective progression criteria). Exercise interventions should be considered the mainstay of ACLR rehabilitation. However, there is little evidence on the dose-response relationship between volume and/or intensity of exercise and outcomes. Physical therapy modalities can be helpful as an adjunct in the early phase of rehabilitation when pain, swelling and limitations in range of motion are present. Adding modalities in the early phase may allow earlier pain-free commencement of exercise rehabilitation. Return to running and return to training/activity are key milestones for rehabilitation after ACLR. However, there is no evidence on which progression or discharge criteria should be used.While there is a very low level of certainty for most components of rehabilitation, most of the recommendations provided in this guideline were agreed to by expert clinicians. This guideline also highlights several new elements of ACLR management not reported previously.

Management of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries : Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline is based on a systematic review of published studies for the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injurie in both skeletally mature and immature patients. This guideline contains eight recommendations and seven options to assist orthopaedic surgeons and all qualified physicians managing patients with ACL injuries based on the best current available evidence. It is also intended to serve as an information resource for professional healthcare practitioners and developers of practice guidelines and recommendations. In addition to providing pragmatic practice recommendations, this guideline also highlights gaps in the literature and informs areas for future research and quality measure development.