Search

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.

A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect of establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. To establish a standardized 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, Pennsylvania, USA, in June 2019. The aim was to establish a consensus on 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. The group reached consensus on 9 statements by using a modified Delphi method. In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into 4 robust categories: early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment after 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 reinjuries, validated knee-specific PROs, and health-related quality of life questionnaires. In the midterm to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. 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., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: The ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) was sponsored by Smith & Nephew, the UPMC, Elizur, Arthrex, Conmed, DJO, Mid-Atlantic Surgical Systems, RTI Surgical, and BlackRhino Medical. K.S. has received consulting fees from the National Football League, Service Excellence, Mitek, Flexion Therapeutics, Samumed, and NovoPedics and royalties from nPhase. C.B.M. has received consulting fees from Linvatec, Medacta, Stryker, Wright Medical, and Zimmer Biomet. V.M. has received educational grants, consulting fees, and speaking fees from Smith & Nephew and educational grants from Arthrex. O.R.A. has received speaking fees from Conmed and honoraria from DJO. S.D. has received personal fees from Zimmer Biomet. A.G. has received grants and personal fees from Smith & Nephew and Ossur and personal fees from Graymont and Olympus. C.C.K. has received grant support from DJO, educational support from CDC Medical, consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet, and nonconsulting fees from Arthrex. R.K. has received grants from Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, Stryker, and Johnson & Johnson; consulting fees from Medacta, Arthrex, Japan Tissue Engineering, and Hirosaki Life Science Innovation; and speaking fees from Arthrex, Smith & Nephew, Zimmer Biomet, Johnson & Johnson, and Japan Tissue Engineering. B.L. has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health–Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. R.G.M. has received stock/stock options from MEND Nutrition and royalties from Springer and Demos Health. L.P. has received research support from the Australian Orthopaedic Association, Friends of the Mater Foundation, and Smith & Nephew; has received speaking fees from Smith & Nephew; has received royalties from Australian Biotechnologies and Signature Orthopaedics; has stock/stock options in Australian Biotechnologies; and has patents with Hip Developments, Smith & Nephew, and Surgical Apps. A.R. has received other support from Enhatch, Conformis, Stryker, Smith & Nephew, Arthrex, Anika Therapeutics, and Bodycad. B.R. has received fellowship support from Smith & Nephew, has received royalties from Elsevier, has stock in Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and is the Editor-in-Chief of The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. B.R.W. has received educational support from Wardlow Enterprises, consulting fees from Linvatec, and faculty/speaking fees from Linvatec. M.Z. is the founder of and has stock in Orthocell. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2020.)