Background: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common modes of failure of total ankle replacement (TAR). However, a precise definition of aseptic loosening is still lacking. This systematic review aimed to identify the variations of applied definitions and offer insights into the lack of consensus. Methods: Human studies reporting aseptic loosening of TAR published in peer-reviewed journals within the last decade were considered. The search strategy involved specific terms in Embase, MEDLINE ALL, and the Cochrane Library. Variations in aseptic loosening definitions were analysed. Results: Of 767 studies, 88 were included in this study. Only nine studies precisely defined aseptic loosening with significant variations. Twenty-two studies referenced the term and fifty-seven reported it as a complication but neither defined nor referenced it. Conclusions: Significant uncertainty exists regarding the universal definition of aseptic loosening of TAR, and many variations occur in terms of the assessment approach and criteria.

OBJECTIVE: The literature presents a wide range of success rates for a single surgical intervention of bacterial-septic-arthritis, and there is a lack of clear criteria for identifying treatment failure and making decisions about reintervention. This Delphi study aims to establish a consensus among an international panel of experts regarding the definition of treatment failure and the criteria for reintervention in case of bacterial arthritis.
METHODS: The conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) criteria were used. Data from a systematic review was provided as the basis for the study. A list of 100 potential experts were identified. The study was designed and conducted as follows: (I) identification and invitation of an expert panel, (II) informing the participating expert panel on the research question and subject, and (III) conducting two or three Delphi rounds to reach consensus on explicit research items. Potential criteria were rated on a five-point Likert scale.
RESULTS: Sixty orthopaedic experts from nine countries participated in this Delphi study, with 55 completing all three rounds. The mean experience as an orthopaedic surgeon was 15 years (SD ± 9). Strong (96%) consensus was reached on the definition of treatment failure: the persistence of physical signs of arthritis (e.g., pain and swelling) and/or systemic inflammation (e.g., fever and no improvement in CRP) despite surgical and antibiotic treatment. Furthermore, consensus (>80%) was reached on six criteria influencing the decision for reintervention; pain (81%), sepsis (98%), fever (88%), serum CRP (93%), blood culture (82%), and synovial fluid culture (84%).
CONCLUSIONS: The definition of treatment failure for bacterial arthritis after a single surgical intervention was established through a three-round Delphi study. Additionally, consensus was reached on six criteria that are helpful for determining the need for reintervention. This definition and these criteria may help in the development of clinical guidelines, and will empower physicians to make more precise and consistent decisions regarding reintervention for patients, ultimately aiming to reduce over- and undertreatment and improve patient outcomes.
METHODS: Level V.

BACKGROUND: Around 1 billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) fail annually worldwide before prescribed intravenous therapy is completed, resulting in avoidable complications, dissatisfaction, and avoidable costs surging to ∼€4bn. We aimed to provide an international consensus on relevance and feasibility of clinical practice guideline recommendations to reduce PIVC failure.
METHODS: e-Delphi study with three rounds through an online questionnaire from March-September 2020 recruiting a multispecialty panel formed by clinicians, managers, academic researchers, and experts in implementation from seven developed and three developing countries, reflecting on experience in PIVC care and implementation of evidence. Further, we included a panel of chronic patients with previous experience in the insert, maintenance, and management of PIVC and intravenous therapy from Ireland and Spain as public and patient involvement (PPI) panel. All experts and patients scored each item on a 4-point Likert scale to assess the relevance and feasibility. We considered consensus descriptor in which the median was 4 with less than or equal to 1,5 interquartile intervals.
RESULTS: Over 90% participants (16 experts) completed the questionnaire on all rounds and 100% PPI (5 patients) completed round 1 due to high consensus they achieved. Our Delphi approach included 49 descriptors, which resulted in an agreed 30 across six domains emerged from the related to (i) general asepsis and cutaneous antisepsis (n = 4), (ii) catheter adequacy and insertion (n = 3), (iii) catheter and catheter site care (n = 6), (iv) catheter removal and replacement strategies (n = 4), (v) general principles for catheter management (n = 10), and (vi) organisational environment (n = 3).
CONCLUSIONS: We provide an international consensus of relevant recommendations for PIVC, deemed feasible to implement in clinical settings. In addition, this methodological approach included substantial representation from clinical experts, academic experts, patient and public expertise, mitigating uncertainty during the implementation process with high-value recommendations to prevent PIVC failure based contextual and individual features, and economic resources worldwide.

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.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the failure rates of direct and indirect restorations for single-tooth restorations.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted by using electronic databases and relevant references for clinical studies on direct and indirect dental restorations with a follow-up of at least 3 years. The risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 and the ROBINS- I tools. The I2 statistic was used for the assessment of heterogeneity. The authors reported summary estimates of annual failure rates of single-tooth restorations using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Of 1415 screened articles, 52 (18 RCTs, 30 prospective, 4 retrospective) met the inclusion criteria. No articles with direct comparisons were identified. No significant difference was found in the annual failure rates of single teeth restored with either direct or indirect restorations, which were calculated as 1% using a random-effects model. High heterogeneity was found, ranging from 80% (P⟨0.01) for studies on direct restorations to 91% (P⟨0.01) for studies on indirect restorations. Most of the studies presented some risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Annual failure rates were similar for direct and indirect single-tooth restorations. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to draw more definitive conclusions.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
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.

UNASSIGNED: Current practices for assessing response to anti-interleukin 5/R treatment in severe asthma patients are heterogeneous. The objective of this study was to achieve an expert consensus defining failure criteria for anti-interleukin 5/R treatment in severe asthma patients.
UNASSIGNED: Experts were invited to a 5-round Delphi exercise if they were pulmonologists managing ⩾30 patients at a nationally recognized severe asthma expert centre. Following two rounds of statement-generating brainstorming, the expert panel ranked each statement according to a 5-point Likert-type scale during three additional rounds. Positive consensus was considered achieved when ⩾80% of experts agreed with a statement with >50% strong agreement and <15% disagreement.
UNASSIGNED: Twenty experts participated in the study. All experts agreed that predefined treatment goals defining effectiveness should be personalized during shared decision making via a patient contract. Treatment failure was defined as (1) absence of a reduction in exacerbation rates by ⩾25% or (2) absence of a reduction in oral corticosteroid therapy by ⩾25% of the initial dosage or (3) occurrence of emergency room visits or hospitalizations after 6 months of treatment. Treatment failure should result in discontinuation. For partial responders, treatment discontinuation was not recommended unless an alternative from another therapeutic class exists and should be discussed in a multidisciplinary consultation.
UNASSIGNED: The present study provides objective criteria for anti IL5 or IL5R failure in severe asthma and suggests consensus based guidelines for prescription, evaluation and discontinuation decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed.
METHODS: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary.
RESULTS: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm (\"Mini-implants\"); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate.
CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.

Prior studies indicate that one factor that may contribute to total hip arthroplasty failure due to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion at the femoral head-trunnion junction is the method of femoral head fixation.
Up-to-date on-line surgical technique guides describing fixation of the prosthetic femoral head of common implants of the 4 largest manufacturers as well as 2 minor manufacturers were identified. The information given regarding preparation and fixation of the femoral head was evaluated and compared.
A total of 24 surgical technique guides were evaluated. Most guides (22/24) addressed fixation technique; of these, 19 of 22 suggested cleaning and 20 of 22 suggested drying the trunnion prior to affixing the femoral head. The manner of fixation, however, varied widely and there was no single technique advocated.
The majority of surgeon education materials do not specify a single technique for assembly of the head femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. If the method of fixation is indeed important, efforts should be made to identify the best technique, and improve and unify the surgical technique instructions.