OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus statements on glenoid bone grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability.
METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement.
RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their greater risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired.
METHODS: Level V, expert opinion.

OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability.
METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement.
RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient\'s preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization.
CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required.
METHODS: Level V, expert opinion.

True acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries are rare in children and adolescents due to the strength of ligaments in this age group. However, a standardized management guideline for these injuries is currently lacking in the literature. This systematic review aims to provide an organized overview of associated injuries and propose a management algorithm for pediatric ACJ injuries. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted. Two independent observers searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases for ACJ injuries in children and adolescents. The extracted data were analyzed (due to the limited number of publications and inhomogeneity of data, no formal statistical analysis was conducted), and cases were categorized based on injury frequency and pattern, leading to the formulation of a treatment algorithm. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist. A total of 77 articles were identified, and 16 articles (4 case series and 12 case reports) met the inclusion criteria. This study included 37 cases in 36 patients (32 males, 4 females) with a mean age of 13 years (9-17 years). Six injury categories were described. Surgical management was performed in 27 ACJ injuries (25 open, 2 arthroscopic). Various surgical implants were used including K wires, polydioxanone sutures (PDS), screws, hook plates, suture anchors, and suture button devices. Most cases achieved good to excellent outcomes, except for one case of voluntary atraumatic dislocation of the ACJ. This systematic review provides the first comprehensive analysis of ACJ injury management in adolescents with open physis. It categorizes injury patterns and presents a treatment algorithm to enhance the understanding of these injuries. The review\'s findings contribute valuable insights for clinicians dealing with pediatric ACJ injuries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability.
METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.
RESULTS: The independent factors identified in the 2 statements that reached unanimous agreement in diagnosis and nonoperative management were age, gender, mechanism of injury, number of instability events, whether reduction was required, occupation, sport/position/level played, collision sport, glenoid or humeral bone-loss, and hyperlaxity. Of the 3 total statements reaching unanimous agreement in Bankart repair, additional factors included overhead sport participation, prior shoulder surgery, patient expectations, and ability to comply with postoperative rehabilitation. Additionally, there was unanimous agreement that complications are rare following Bankart repair and that recurrence rates can be diminished by a well-defined rehabilitation protocol, inferior anchor placement (5-8 mm apart), multiple small-anchor fixation points, treatment of concomitant pathologies, careful capsulolabral debridement/reattachment, and appropriate indications/assessment of risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 84% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the aspects of patient history that should be evaluated in those with acute instability, the prognostic factors for nonoperative management, and Bankart repair. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the steps to minimize complications for Bankart repair, and the placement of anchors 5-8 mm apart. Finally, there was no consensus on the optimal position for shoulder immobilization.
METHODS: Level V, expert opinion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the Latarjet procedure, remplissage, and glenoid-bone grafting for anterior shoulder instability.
METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.
RESULTS: The technical approaches identified in the statements on the Latarjet procedure and glenoid bone-graft were that a subscapularis split approach should be utilized, and that it is unclear whether a capsular repair is routinely required. Furthermore, despite similar indications, glenoid bone-grafting may be preferred over the Latarjet in patients with bone-loss greater than can be treated with a coracoid graft, and in cases of surgeon preference, failed prior Latarjet or glenoid bone-grafting procedure, and epilepsy. In contrast, the primary indications for a remplissage procedure was either an off-track or engaging Hill-Sachs lesion without severe glenoid bone loss. Additionally, in contrast to the bone-block procedure, complications following remplissage are rare, and loss of shoulder external rotation can be minimized by performing the tenodesis via the safe-zone and not over medializing the fixation.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 89% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the prognostic factors that are important to consider in those undergoing a glenoid bone-grafting procedure including age, activity level, Hill-Sachs Lesion, extent of glenoid bone-loss, hyperlaxity, prior surgeries, and arthritic changes. Furthermore, there was unanimous agreement that it is unclear whether a capsular repair is routinely required with a glenoid bone graft, but it may be beneficial in some cases. There was no unanimous agreement on any aspect related to the Latarjet procedure or Remplissage.
METHODS: Level V: expert opinion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on revision surgery, rehabilitation and return to play, and clinical follow-up for anterior shoulder instability.
METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability.
RESULTS: The primary relative indications for revision surgery include symptomatic apprehension or recurrent instability, additional intra-articular pathologies, and symptomatic hardware failure. In revision cases, the differentiating factors that dictate treatment are the degree of glenohumeral bone loss and rotator cuff function/integrity. The minimum amount of time before allowing athletes to return to play is unknown, but other factors should be considered, including restoration of strength, range of motion and proprioception, and resolved pain and apprehension, as these are prognostic factors of reinjury. Additionally, psychological factors should be considered in the rehabilitation process. Patients should be clinically followed up for a minimum of 12 months or until a return to full, premorbid function/activities. Finally, the following factors should be included in anterior shoulder instability-specific, patient-reported outcome measures: function/limitations impact on activities of daily living, return to sport/activity, instability symptoms, confidence in shoulder, and satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 92% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were indications and factors affecting decisions for revision surgery, as well as how prior surgeries impact procedure choice. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the role of psychological factors in the return to play, considerations for allowing return to play, as well as prognostic factors. Finally, there was a lack of unanimous consensus on recommended timing and methods for clinical follow-up.
METHODS: Level V, expert opinion.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular fractures and fracture-dislocations of the ulnar-sided carpometacarpal joints (US-CMC) are common and under-reported. Their diagnosis is often delayed or incomplete, and there is no consensus as to the best treatment. The aim of this systematic literature review was to focus on the quality of existing data and to describe in detail the available evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of these lesions. Based on our findings, we will propose guidelines for improving the design of future studies on these lesions.
METHODS: This systematic literature review looked at all articles published between 1918 and 2019 on US-CMC fractures and fracture-dislocations. The quality of the articles was evaluated using the Quality Appraisal Tool devised by Moga et al. Information on the diagnostic and therapeutic methods were extracted along with epidemiological data, classifications, and clinical and radiological outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 500 articles identified, 13 were included. According to the Quality Appraisal Tool, three of these articles had acceptable quality. While either radiographs or CT scans were used for the diagnosis, the radiographs were insufficient to precisely describe the lesions and guide the treatment. Conservative treatment or percutaneous surgical treatment was preferred for acute stable lesions without extensive fractures or comminution, while open surgical treatment was used most often in cases of unstable or sub-acute fractures and fracture-dislocations.
CONCLUSIONS: The current literature on this topic is made up of case series with a low level of evidence. CT is needed to assess and classify these lesions and select between conservative and surgical treatment. Unstable cases or those with delayed presentation should be treated with an open surgical approach. Based on our findings, we propose reporting guidelines for future studies on the treatment of US-CMC fractures and fracture-dislocations.
METHODS: III.

Peroneal tendon injuries are a significant cause of lateral ankle symptoms in the active population. Accurate diagnosis and prompt treatment is important for minimizing the risk of long-term sequelae associated with chronic peroneal tendinopathy. Although several studies have been published on diagnostic strategies and treatment outcomes, there is no consensus on the optimal management of peroneal tendon pathologies.
The purpose of this ESSKA-AFAS consensus statement was to conduct an international and multidisciplinary agreed guideline on management of patients with peroneal tendon pathologies.
Using the Nominal Group Technique, a panel comprised of sixteen specialists spanning nine countries was convened by the ESSKA-AFAS board. In preparation for the meeting, relevant questions were identified and supported by a systematic literature search. During the meeting, the panel members gave presentations on each question, and the evidence supporting each subject was then vetted by open discussion. Statements were thereafter adjusted on the basis of the discussion and voted upon to determine consensus using a 0-10 range Likert scale. Agreement was confirmed when a mean score of at least 7.5 was reached.
This ESSKA-AFAS consensus statement on the optimal management of peroneal tendon pathologies is the result of international and multidisciplinary agreement combined with a systematic review of the literature.
V.