Search

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review to identify and summarize the various techniques that have been used to simulate the pivot-shift test in vitro., Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened for studies involving the simulated pivot-shift test in human cadaveric knees published between 1946 and May 2014. Study parameters including sample size, study location, simulated pivot-shift technique, loads applied, knee flexion angles at which simulated pivot shift was tested, and kinematic evaluation tools were extracted and analyzed., Results: Forty-eight studies reporting simulated pivot-shift testing on 627 cadaveric knees fulfilled the criteria. Reviewer inter-rater agreement for study selection showed a κ score of 0.960 (full-text review). Twenty-seven studies described the use of internal rotation torque, with a mean of 5.3 Nm (range, 1 to 18 Nm). Forty-seven studies described the use of valgus torque, with a mean of 8.8 Nm (range, 1 to 25 Nm). Four studies described the use of iliotibial tract tension, ranging from 10 to 88 N. Regarding static simulated pivot-shift test techniques, 100% of the studies performed testing at 30° of knee flexion, and the most tested range of motion in the continuous tests was 0° to 90°. Anterior tibial translation was the most analyzed parameter during the simulated pivot-shift test, being used in 45 studies. In 22% of the studies, a robotic system was used to simulate the pivot-shift test. Robotic systems were shown to have better control of the loading system and higher tracking system accuracy., Conclusions: This study provides a reference for investigators who desire to apply simulated pivot shift in their in vitro studies. It is recommended to simulate the pivot-shift test using a 10-Nm valgus torque and 5-Nm internal rotation torque. Knee flexion of 30° is mandatory for testing., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of basic science studies., (Copyright © 2015 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This systematic review explores management strategies for intraoperative anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft contamination., Methods: Two databases (Medline and EMBASE) were screened for studies involving ACL graft contamination published between 1946 and April 2013. We included studies evaluating the management of a contaminated graft and excluded small case-series studies. We conducted a full-text review of eligible studies, and the references were searched for additional eligible studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the searched studies., Results: Our search yielded 6 laboratory investigations with a total of 495 graft samples used. These samples were contaminated and cleansed by various methods. The most successful sterilization protocols used chlorhexidine or mechanical agitation with a polymyxin B-bacitracin solution to achieve sterility in 100% of their respective experimental graft tissues. A chlorhexidine soak and plain bacitracin soak were also effective, at 97.5% and 97%, respectively. Povidone-iodine and an antibiotic soak of polymyxin-bacitracin were the least effective, with sterility rates of 48% and 57%, respectively., Conclusions: The results of this review suggest that the optimal agent for sterilizing a dropped graft is chlorhexidine. A protocol of mechanical agitation and serial dilution with a polymyxin B-bacitracin solution was also highly effective; however, the sample size was too small to realistically recommend its use. Bacitracin alone was also found to be an effective sterilization agent, as was a combined solution of neomycin and polymyxin B. Pooled results showed that normal saline solution, povidone-iodine, and a polymyxin B-bacitracin solution all yielded suboptimal sterilization. The available evidence, however, is laboratory based and may not accurately reflect clinical conditions; moreover, there is a lack of biomechanical studies evaluating sterilized grafts. As a result, the findings should be interpreted with caution., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of basic science studies., (Copyright © 2014 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

PurposeA 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.MethodsTo 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionThis 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 evidenceV.

Purpose: In single-stage ACL–PCL reconstruction, there is uncertainty regarding the order of graft tensioning and fixation, as well as the optimal knee flexion angle(s) for graft fixation. A systematic review of clinical studies of single-stage combined ACL–PCL reconstruction was performed to determine whether a particular fixation sequence and/or knee flexion angle is associated with superior outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All levels of evidence were included. All outcome measures were extracted, including physical examination values, radiographic measurements, and objective and subjective outcomes. Results: Of the 19 included studies, 17 tensioned and fixed the PCL before the ACL. Only four studies reported the methods/forces used for graft tensioning. Across studies, the ACL was fixed at variable knee flexion angles, from full extension to 70°. Conversely, 3 studies fixed the PCL at a knee flexion angle < 45°, while the remaining 16 studies fixed the PCL at a flexion angle > 70°. Patient-reported outcomes were qualitatively similar between groups. Conclusions: This systematic review found considerable variability in graft tension, fixation sequence, and knee flexion angle at the time of fixation, with insufficient evidence to support specific surgical practices. Most commonly, the PCL is fixed before the ACL graft, with fixation occurring at a knee flexion angle between 70° and 90° and near full extension, respectively. The methodology for quantifying the forces applied for graft tensioning is rarely described. Given this clinical equipoise, future studies should consistently report these surgical details. Furthermore, prospective, randomized studies on the treatment of multiligament knee injuries are needed to improve outcomes in patients. Level of evidence: IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: 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 and description of the RTS continuum, as well as to 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 characterized by achievement of the pre-injury level of sport and involves a criteria-based progression from return to participation to return to sport, and ultimately return to performance. Purely time-based RTS decision-making should be abandoned. Progression occurs along a 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 biologic assessment of healing and recovery. Level of evidence: IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]