Search

Purpose: To investigate the current preferences regarding the work-up and treatment choices of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans (JOCD) of the knee, ankle and elbow among orthopaedic surgeons. Methods: An international survey was set up for all European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) members, which assessed various questions on diagnosis and treatment of JOCD of different joints. Respondents answered questions for one or more joints, based on their expertise. Proportions of answers were calculated and compared between joints. Consensus was defined as more than 75% agreement on an item; disagreement was defined as less than 25% agreement. Results: Fifty physicians responded to the survey, of whom forty-two filled out the questions on the knee, fourteen on the ankle and nine on the elbow. Plain radiography and MRI were the most used imaging modalities for the assessment and follow-up of JOCD in the knee and ankle, but not for the elbow. MRI was also the preferred method to assess the stability of a lesion in the knee and ankle. There was universal agreement on activity and/or sports restriction as the non-operative treatment of choice for JOCD. Size, stability and physeal closure were the most important prognostic factors in determining the operative technique for the elbow. For the knee, these factors were size and stability and for the ankle, these were size and location. Conclusion: Activity and/or sports restriction was the non-operative treatment of choice. Furthermore, plain radiography and MRI were the preferred imaging modalities for the knee and ankle, but not for the elbow. For determining the operative technique, physicians agreed that the size of the lesion is an important prognostic factor in all joints. These findings help us understand how juvenile osteochondritis dissecans is treated in current practice and may provide opportunities for improvement. Level of evidence: Level V. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The official medical journals of scientific societies advocate for high-quality standards. It's important to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in influential journals, such as the hybrid journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery , and Arthroscopy ( ESSKA ), adhere to reporting guidelines and best practices. Therefore, the present scoping review aimed to explore and map the reporting practices and methodological quality in recent RCTs published in the Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy ( KSSTA ) journal, focusing on identifying gaps in adherence to reporting guidelines and transparency. The study was preregistered and followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. RCTs published in KSSTA between 2022 and 2023 were included. The search was conducted via PubMed. A two-stage selection process was employed, with two independent reviewers conducting study selection and data extraction. Data collected included study characteristics, intervention details, sample size calculation reporting, data transparency, and adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Critical appraisal was conducted using the JBI tool for RCTs. All included RCTs ( n = 25) reported a predetermined minimum sample size. Study protocol preregistration was reported in 52% of the RCTs, while only 24% provided data availability statements. Most RCTs offering data availability indicated data would be shared upon request. Adherence to CONSORT guidelines was reported in 96% of studies, with only one RCT not adhering to recognized reporting standards. All the included studies adequately addressed statistical conclusion validity. However, internal validity was less consistently addressed across the studies., Conclusions: While most recently published RCTs in KSSTA adhered to CONSORT guidelines, there is potential for improvement in the reporting of protocol preregistration and data availability statements. Although all studies reported sample size calculations, transparency in data sharing remains limited., Level of Evidence: Level I., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy.)

Abstract Chronic tendinopathies represent a major problem in the clinical practice of sports orthopaedic surgeons, sports doctors and other health professionals involved in the treatment of athletes and patients that perform repetitive actions. The lack of consensus relative to the diagnostic tools and treatment modalities represents a management dilemma for these professionals. With this review, the purpose of the ESSKA Basic Science Committee is to establish guidelines for understanding, diagnosing and treating this complex pathology.

Chronic tendinopathies represent a major problem in the clinical practice of sports orthopaedic surgeons, sports doctors and other health professionals involved in the treatment of athletes and patients that perform repetitive actions. The lack of consensus relative to the diagnostic tools and treatment modalities represents a management dilemma for these professionals. With this review, the purpose of the ESSKA Basic Science Committee is to establish guidelines for understanding, diagnosing and treating this complex pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]