Treatment After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

© The Author(s) 2020. Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best-practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus nonoperative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. There were 66 international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, who were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the scientific organizing committee and session chairs for the 3 working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements before the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Ultimately, 80% agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Overall, 9 statements achieved unanimous support, 2 reached strong consensus, 1 did not achieve consensus, and 1 was removed because of redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended because of the high risk of secondary meniscal and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight-plane activities, nonoperative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and nonoperative treatment with patients after an ACL injury

Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury clinical outcomes consensus group

© 2020, The Author(s). Purpose: A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. Methods: To establish a standardized approach to assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA; USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method. Results: In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories—early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific PROs and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid- to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. Conclusion: This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment. Level of evidence: V

Outcomes after bone grafting in patients with and without ACL revision surgery: a retrospective study

Abstract Background Current literature is lacking of data regarding functional outcomes in patients following bone tunnel grafting with or without revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with (RACL) or without revision ACL reconstruction (OBG) following bone grafting. Methods Fifty-nine patients (18 female, 41 male) who underwent bone grafting due to recurrent, symptomatic ACL deficiency following ACL reconstruction between 2011 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. In 44 patients (mean age: 30,5 ± 8,5 years) a staged revision ACL reconstruction (RACL) was performed after bone grafting. 10 patients (mean age: 33.2 ± 10.3 years) refused to have ACL revision surgery after bone grafting (OBG). Outcome measures included instrumented laxity testing, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale. Results After mean period of 33,9 ± 17.0 months, 54 patients were available for follow up examination. In the RACL group, the Lysholm score was 77,2 ± 15,5 (range 35–100), the mean IKDC subjective knee score was 69,0 ± 13,4 (range 39,1–97,7) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,1 ± 1,5 (range, 1–9). Similarly, in the OBG group the mean Lysholm score was 72,90 ± 18,7 (range 50–100), the mean IKDC subjective score was 69,3 ± 20,0 (range 44,1–100) and the mean Tegner activity score was 4,6 ± 1,2 (range, 3–6). No significant difference was observed between the two groups. Knee laxity measurements were elevated without revision ACL surgery, however the difference was not significant. Conclusion Bone tunnel grafting with or without second stage ACL revision surgery showed no significant difference in functional outcome score. Thus, in case of revision ACL instability careful patient selection is necessary and expectations should be discussed openly with the patients

Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group

OBJECTIVES A precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sports and their previous activity level. The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury RTS Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and description of the RTS continuum, as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. METHODS An international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence. RESULTS Key points include that RTS is characterised by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS, and ultimately return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors and concomitant injuries. CONCLUSION The resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery

Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury clinical outcomes consensus group

PURPOSE: A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. METHODS: To establish a standardized approach to assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA; USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method. RESULTS: In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories-early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific PROs and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid- to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. CONCLUSION: This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V

Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group

Purpose A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. Methods To establish a standardised assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method. Results In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories—early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific patient-reported outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid-term to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. Conclusion This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment. Level of Evidence Level V

Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group

Background: A precise and consistent definition of return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is lacking, and there is controversy surrounding the process of returning patients to sport and their previous activity level. Purpose: The aim of the Panther Symposium ACL Injury Return to Sport Consensus Group was to provide a clear definition of RTS after ACL injury and a description of the RTS continuum as well as provide clinical guidance on RTS testing and decision-making. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: An international, multidisciplinary group of ACL experts convened as part of a consensus meeting. Consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi method. Literature review was performed to report the supporting evidence. Results: Key points include that RTS is characterized by achievement of the preinjury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to RTS and, ultimately, return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along an RTS continuum, with decision-making by a multidisciplinary group that incorporates objective physical examination data and validated and peer-reviewed RTS tests, which should involve functional assessment as well as psychological readiness. Consideration should be given to biological healing, contextual factors, and concomitant injuries. Conclusion: The resultant consensus statements and scientific rationale aim to inform the reader of the complex process of RTS after ACL injury that occurs along a dynamic continuum. Research is needed to determine the ideal RTS test battery, the best implementation of psychological readiness testing, and methods for the biological assessment of healing and recovery

Dynamic Q-angle is increased in patients with chronic patellofemoral instability and correlates positively with femoral torsion

PURPOSE The purpose of the study was to evaluate the frontal gait patterns in patients with chronic patellofemoral instability compared to healthy controls. The hypothesis was that internal-rotation-adduction moment of the knee as altered dynamic Q-angle is evident in patients and correlates positively with increased femoral torsion. METHODS Thirty-five patients with symptomatic recurrent patellofemoral instability requiring surgical treatment were matched for average age, sex, and body mass index with 15 healthy controls (30 knees). Several clinical and radiographic measurements were taken from each participant: internal and external rotation (hipIR, hipER), Q-angle, tubercle sulcus angle (TS-angle), femoral antetorsion (femAT), tibial tubercle-trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, and frontal leg axis. Additionally, three frontal gait patterns were defined and recorded: (1) internal-rotation-adduction moment of the knee during normal walking, (2) dynamic valgus of the knee, and (3) Trendelenburg's sign in a single-leg squat. Randomized videography was evaluated by three independent blinded observers. Statistical analysis was performed using regression models and comparisons of gait patterns and clinical and radiological measurements. Furthermore, observer reliability was correlated to gradings of radiological parameters. RESULTS Patients showed altered dynamic Q-angle gait pattern during normal walking (p < 0.001) compared to healthy controls (interrater kappa = 0.61), whereas highest observer agreement was reported if femAT was greater than 20° (kappa = 0.85). Logistic regression model revealed higher femAT (18.2° ± 12.5 versus 11.9° ± 7.0 (p = 0.004) as a significant variable, as well as lower TT-TG distance (23.6 mm ± 2.8 vs. 16.6 mm ± 4.9, p = 0.004) on evident dynamic Q-angle gait pattern. Dynamic valgus in a single-leg squat was observed significantly more often in patients (p < 0.001) compared to controls (interrater kappa = 0.7). However, besides the static measured Q-angle as the only significant variable on evident dynamic valgus pattern (13.6° ± 4.6 vs. 10.3° ± 5.2, p = 0.003), no radiological parameter was detected to correlate significantly with dynamic valgus and Trendelenburg's sign (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS Clinical detection of pathologic torsion and bony alignment may be difficult in patients with patellofemoral instability. The present study demonstrated that dynamic Q-angle gait pattern is significantly altered in patients with chronic patellofemoral instability compared to healthy controls. Moreover, dynamic Q-angle correlates positively with higher femoral torsion and negatively with higher TT-TG distance. Therefore, clinical and radiological assessment of maltorsion should be added to the standard diagnostic workup in cases of patellofemoral instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II

Single cut distal femoral osteotomy for correction of femoral torsion and valgus malformity in patellofemoral malalignment - proof of application of new trigonometrical calculations and 3D-printed cutting guides

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to perform a derotational osteotomy at the distal femur, as is done in cases of patellofemoral instability, and demonstrate the predictability of three-dimensional (3D) changes on axes in a cadaveric model by the use of a new mathematical approach. Methods Ten human cadaveric femurs, with increased antetorsion, underwent a visually observed derotational osteotomy at the distal femur by 20°, as is commonly done in clinics. For surgery, a single cut osteotomy with a defined cutting angle was calculated and given using a simple 3D-printed cutting guide per specimen, based on a newly-created trigonometrical model. To simulate post-operative straight frontal alignment in a normal range, a goal for the mechanical lateral distal femur angle (mLDFA) was set to 87.0° for five specimens (87-goal group) and 90.0° for five specimens (90-goal group). Specimens underwent pre- and post-operative radiographic analysis with CT scan for torsion and frontal plane x-ray for alignment measurements of mLDFA and anatomical mechanical angle (AMA). Results Performed derotation showed a mean of 19.69° ±1.08°SD (95% CI: 18.91° to 20.47°). Regarding frontal alignment, a mean mLDFA of 86.9° ±0.66°SD (87-goal-group) and 90.42° ±0.25° SD (90-goal group), was observed (p = 0.008). Overall, the mean difference between intended mLDFA-goal and post-operatively achieved mLDFA was 0.14° ±0.56° SD (95% CI: -0.26° to 0.54°). Conclusion A preoperative calculated angle for single cut derotational osteotomy at the distal femur leads to a clinically precise post-operative result on torsion and frontal alignment when using this approach

Treatment after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group

Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance towards consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative versus non-operative treatment for ACL injury.The purpose of this study was to report the consensus statements on operative versus non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organising Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided initial agreement and comments on the statement via online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty per cent agreement was defined a priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative veresus non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached consensus during the symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support; two reached strong consensus; one did not achieve consensus; and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided.In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting and pivoting sports, early anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight plane activities, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomical ACLR is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatment with patients after an ACL injury.Level of evidence: V