Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus: part II—surgical strategy

• Published in: Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023-11, Vol.31 (11), p.4652-4661
• Main Authors: Condello, Vincenzo, Beaufilis, Philippe, Becker, Roland, Ahmad, Sufian S., Bonomo, Marco, Dejour, David, Eriksson, Karl, Filardo, Giuseppe, Feucht, Matthias J., Grassi, Alberto, Wilson, Adrian, Menetrey, Jacques, Pujol, Nicolas, Rathcke, Martin, Seil, Romain, Strauss, Marc J., Tischer, Thomas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adults; Anterior cruciate ligament; Cartilage; Consensus; Debates; Delphi method; Failure; Injuries; Knee; Ligaments; Literature reviews; Low level; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Orthopedics; Questions; Revision; Revisions; Sports Medicine; Standardization; Steering; Strategy; Surgery; Surgical strategy
• ISSN: 0942-2056; 1433-7347; 1433-7347
• DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07550-5

Purpose 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. Conclusion 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. Level of evidence Level II.