Citations

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Abstract Acute, traumatic meniscus tears are common and should be repaired whenever possible. However, the biological age of the patient, along with the specific tear morphology, may significantly influence the selection of the repair technique, expected clinical outcomes and the postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Risk factors for failure of meniscus repair, such as ligament laxity, need to be addressed to improve the healing potential of the meniscus. Biologic augmentation strategies, including bone marrow stimulation, platelet‐rich plasma, fibrin clot, mesenchymal stem cells or meniscal wrapping, can be used to enhance healing and reduce failure of meniscus repair rates. However, the clinical evidence remains limited and of low quality. As such, the routine use of biologic augmentation in meniscus repair warrants critical evaluation. In patients with post‐meniscectomy syndrome, meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) may be a viable option to reduce pain and joint degeneration and improve knee function. Meniscus implants provide alternatives to traditional MAT; however, their long‐term efficacy, chondroprotective effects and integration within the knee joint require further research. Meniscus reconstruction using tendon autografts has been described as an alternative treatment option in patients with meniscus loss. Emerging methods, such as gene therapy and repurposed drugs, demonstrate in vitro potential for advancing meniscal repair, although their clinical applications are still in their infancy. Future research is necessary to optimize meniscal repair techniques, enhance clinical efficacy, and ultimately, improve outcomes in patients. Level of Evidence Level V.

Purpose To develop an expert consensus statement on the diagnosis, management, and rehabilitation of medial meniscal root tears (MMRTs) using a modified Delphi technique. Methods A working group developed statements on MMRT diagnosis, nonoperative management, surgical indications, surgical management, alignment, and rehabilitation using modified Delphi techniques. Fifty‐six experts were surveyed over 3 rounds to reach consensus, with agreement measured on a 5‐point Likert scale. Statements were included, revised, or excluded on the basis of predefined thresholds (≥75% agreement, <20% disagreement). Experts suggested revisions or new statements in the first 2 rounds, and final consensus statements were included. Results All 56 experts completed 3 survey rounds. Experts agreed that root tears may occur with no known history of trauma, typically in older patients, and that it should be diagnosed with an magnetic resonance imaging. In symptomatic patients with MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique (performing a pie‐crusting technique can be helpful for visualization). Nonoperative management is advised for patients with advanced osteoarthritis. High tibial osteotomy may be considered for significant varus malalignment during MMRT repair. The only statement without consensus was the management of asymptomatic MMRTs with mild medial compartment cartilage wear, indicating ongoing debate. Conclusions Overall, 98% of statements reached consensus. There is agreement that magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard for diagnosis. Symptomatic MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired early using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique. End‐stage knee osteoarthritis warrants nonoperative management of MMRTs, and a structured postoperative protocol with limited weightbearing and range of motion is essential after repair. No agreement was reached on managing asymptomatic MMRTs in patients without significant medial compartment degeneration. Meniscal centralization sutures may help in cases of substantial extrusion, but their routine use is debated. Level of Evidence Level V, consensus of expert opinion.

Purpose To establish international expert consensus on surgical techniques, complications, and rehabilitation protocols for lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) performed adjunctively with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. In the final round, 16 statements on LEAP techniques and complications were scored on a 5‐point Likert scale; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” constituted consensus. When appropriate, strength of recommendation was graded. Statements lacking support were revised until consensus or abandonment. Results Six statements achieved unanimous consensus (100%), 2 had strong consensus (90%‐99.9%), and 3 reached consensus (75%‐89.9%); 4 were removed. Key technical recommendations were as follows: (1) in iliotibial band procedures, the graft strip should pass beneath the lateral collateral ligament; (2) an anatomic technique is mandatory for anterolateral ligament reconstruction; and (3) no single LEAP is clinically superior to another. Unanimous agreement indicated that modern LEAPs do not increase lateral compartment osteoarthritis risk, carry a low complication rate, and do not necessitate changes to rehabilitation or return‐to‐play timelines. Conclusions Consensus defined core surgical principles and confirmed the safety of adding LEAPs to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. When an iliotibial band graft is used, it should be routed deep to the lateral collateral ligament and fixed between 0° and 60° of knee flexion under low tension. For anterolateral ligament reconstruction, femoral fixation should be in full extension at a posterior‐proximal point relative to the lateral epicondyle. Although no single LEAP proved superiority, adherence to these principles permits safe, effective surgery without altering standard rehabilitation or return‐to‐sport protocols and without increasing osteoarthritis risk. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Purpose To define expert consensus on whether and how lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) should accompany anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to optimize outcomes in ACL‐deficient knees. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. Twenty‐one statements on patient selection for combined ACL reconstruction (ACLR) + LEAPs were graded on 5‐point Likert scales; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” signified consensus. Strength of recommendation was ranked, and statements failing the threshold were revised or discarded after discussion. Results One statement achieved unanimous agreement (100%): it is strongly recommended to add a LEAP for active patients ≤25 years receiving hamstring‐autograft ACLR to reduce graft failure. Strong consensus (≥90%) supported LEAPs in primary ACLR when grade 3 pivot shift (97.9%), knee hyperextension (97.9%), skeletally immature status (79.5%), revision ACLR (91.5%), return to pivoting sports (93.2%), active patients ≤25 years using nonhamstring grafts (90.7%), grade 3 Lachman test (90%), and when multiple relative risk factors coexist (statement 36, 97.1%). Consensus (75%‐89.9%) favored LEAPs for chronic symptomatic ACL deficiency (86.1%), posterior tibial slope >12° (85.7%), and a history of contralateral ACL injury (88.9%). Eight statements did not reach consensus regarding small‐diameter autografts, female athletes, imaging signs of anterolateral injury (e.g., Segond fracture, lateral femoral‐notch sign), and concomitant meniscal procedures. One statement on LEAPs with primary ACL repair was withdrawn because the project focused on reconstruction. Conclusions International experts strongly recommend adding a LEAP in young active patients undergoing hamstring‐autograft ACLR and in cases of high‐grade rotational or anterior laxity, knee hyperextension, revision surgery, or returning to pivoting sports. Unresolved issues include small graft size, female athletes, imaging findings of rotational instability, and concurrent meniscal procedures, highlighting priorities for future research. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Background: When injuring the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), simultaneous meniscal tears often occur. However, little data describe ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and the subsequent risk of revision ACLR, as well as cartilaginous and meniscal damage after primary ACLR with different treatments for injury of the lateral meniscus (LM). Purpose: To investigate (1) how different LM treatments during primary ACLR affect the odds of revision ACLR and the cartilaginous and meniscal status at revision in a long-term follow-up and (2) whether the increased risk of subsequent meniscal and cartilaginous injuries seen with meniscal resection in the short term would continue in the long term, and (3) the increased risk with subsequent meniscal injuries with meniscal repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry were used. The study compared 2 groups: patients with isolated ACLR and patients with ACLR and concomitant LM injury, further subdividing the latter into 4 treatment types: repair, resection, both, and left in situ. Patients with medial meniscal injuries were excluded. The main outcomes studied were the odds for revision ACLR and the cartilaginous and meniscal status at revision 5 and 10 years after primary surgery. Results: Data for 5 years were available for 22,208 patients and data for 10 years were available for 11,058 patients. Compared with isolated ACLR, patients with concomitant LM injury left in situ had higher odds of revision ACLR at both 5 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.95; P = .004) and 10 years (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.09-2.19; P = .01), while those with LM repair had higher odds at 5 years (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.23-2.43; P = .002). LM repair also increased the odds of subsequent meniscal injuries at 5 years (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.76-7.03; P = .0004) and 10 years (OR, 7.26; 95% CI, 1.67-31.52; P = .008). Partial meniscectomy did not show an increased risk of cartilage injury, subsequent meniscal injury, or revision ACLR at long-term follow-up compared with the control group. Conclusion: This demonstrates that over 5 and 10 years, LM repair during primary ACLR is associated with an increased risk of revision ACLR and subsequent meniscal injuries. The higher risk of revision ACLR when the LM is left in situ emphasizes the need for careful consideration of treatment methods. Conversely, partial meniscectomy did not show an associated increased risk of cartilaginous injury in the long term and is associated with a lower risk of subsequent meniscal injury and revision ACLR than other treatment options, raising questions about whether preserving the meniscus at all costs is always the best approach.

AbstractArtificial intelligence (AI) has been influencing healthcare and medical research for several years and will likely become indispensable in the near future. AI is intended to support healthcare professionals to make the healthcare system more efficient and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Despite the numerous benefits of AI systems, significant concerns remain. Errors in AI systems can pose serious risks to human health, underscoring the critical need for safety, as well as adherence to ethical and moral standards, before these technologies can be integrated into clinical practice. To address these challenges, the development, certification, and deployment of medical AI systems must adhere to strict and transparent regulations. The European Commission has already established a regulatory framework for AI systems by enacting the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. This review article, part of an AI learning series, discusses key considerations for medical AI systems such as reliability, accuracy, trustworthiness, lawfulness and legal compliance, ethical and moral alignment, sustainability, and regulatory oversight.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) represent a broad spectrum of pathology with potentially devastating consequences. Currently, disagreement in the terminology, diagnosis and treatment of these injuries limits clinical care and research. This study aimed to develop consensus on the nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation strategies for patients with MLKI, while identifying important research priorities for further study. An international consensus process was conducted using validated Delphi methodology in line with British Journal of Sports Medicine guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel of 39 members from 14 countries, completed 3 rounds of online surveys exploring aspects of nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and future research priorities. Levels of agreement (LoA) with each statement were rated anonymously on a 5-point Likert scale, with experts encouraged to suggest modifications or additional statements. LoA for consensus in the final round were defined ‘a priori’ if >75% of respondents agreed and fewer than 10% disagreed, and dissenting viewpoints were recorded and discussed. After three Delphi rounds, 50 items (92.6%) reached consensus. Key statements that reached consensus within nomenclature included a clear definition for MLKI (LoA 97.4%) and the need for an updated MLKI classification system that classifies injury mechanism, extent of non-ligamentous structures injured and the presence or absence of dislocation. Within diagnosis, consensus was reached that there should be a low threshold for assessment with CT angiography for MLKI within a high-energy context and for certain injury patterns including bicruciate and PLC injuries (LoA 89.7%). The value of stress radiography or intraoperative fluoroscopy also reached consensus (LoA 89.7%). Within treatment, it was generally agreed that existing literature generally favours operative management of MLKI, particularly for young patients (LoA 100%), and that single-stage surgery should be performed whenever possible (LoA 92.3%). This consensus statement will facilitate clinical communication in MLKI, the care of these patients and future research within MLKI.

AbstractArtificial intelligence's (AI) accelerating progress demands rigorous evaluation standards to ensure safe, effective integration into healthcare's high‐stakes decisions. As AI increasingly enables prediction, analysis and judgement capabilities relevant to medicine, proper evaluation and interpretation are indispensable. Erroneous AI could endanger patients; thus, developing, validating and deploying medical AI demands adhering to strict, transparent standards centred on safety, ethics and responsible oversight. Core considerations include assessing performance on diverse real‐world data, collaborating with domain experts, confirming model reliability and limitations, and advancing interpretability. Thoughtful selection of evaluation metrics suited to the clinical context along with testing on diverse data sets representing different populations improves generalisability. Partnering software engineers, data scientists and medical practitioners ground assessment in real needs. Journals must uphold reporting standards matching AI's societal impacts. With rigorous, holistic evaluation frameworks, AI can progress towards expanding healthcare access and quality.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

Update This article was updated on May 12, 2023, because of a previous error. In the Note on page 612, Byson P. Lesniak, MD, had not been listed as a member of the STaR Trial for Multiple Ligament Knee Injuries Network. The Note now reads “The STaR Trial for Multiple Ligament Knee Injuries Network includes Robert Arciero, MD; Brandee S. Black, MD; Catherine M. Coady, MD, FRSCS; Jonathan M. Cooper, DO; Katherine J. Coyner, MD; Cory M. Edgar, MD, PhD; Al M.J. Getgood, MD, FRCS(Tr&Orth); Joe M. Hart, PhD, ATC; Jonathan D. Hodax, MD, MS; Jonathan D. Hughes, MD; Cale A. Jacobs, PhD, ATC; Darren L. Johnson, MD; Ryan M. Khan, MSc, CCRP; Byson P. Lesniak, MD; Jeffrey A. Macalena, MD; Robert G. Marx, MD; Mark D. Miller, MD; Bradley Nelson, MD; Alicia Oostdyk, PhD; Charity G. Patterson, PhD, MSPH; Adam J. Popchak, PT, PhD; Anil S. Ranawat, MD; Michael J. Stuart, MD; Caroline E. Taber, AB; Ryan J. Warth, MD; Daniel B. Whelan, MD, MSc, FRCSC; and Isabel Wolfe, BS.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2023 Jun 21;105(12):e33. Background: Multiple ligament knee injuries (MLKIs) represent a spectrum of injury patterns that are often associated with concomitant musculoskeletal and neurovascular injuries, complex treatment, and postoperative complications. However, there has not been high-level evidence describing the presentation and treatment of MLKIs. The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to describe characteristics of MLKIs, their management, and related complications using a pathoanatomic MLKI classification system based on the Schenck Knee Dislocation classification system. Methods: This review identified and analyzed MLKIs that occurred between 2011 and 2015. Cases with an MLKI were included in this study if there was a complete tear of ≥2 ligaments and at least 1 ligament was repaired or reconstructed. Cases in which a ligament was deemed clinically incompetent due to a partial ligament tear and required surgical repair or reconstruction were considered equivalent to grade-III tears for inclusion and classification. Demographic information, the mechanism of injury, times from injury to presentation to an orthopaedic surgeon and to surgery, the ligament injury pattern, associated injuries, surgical procedures, and complications were captured. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 773 individuals from 14 centers who underwent surgery for an MLKI were reviewed. The mean age of the individuals was 30.5 ± 12.7 years, and 74.2% were male. The most common mechanism involved sports (43.2%). The median time from injury to presentation to the orthopaedic surgeon was 11 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 48 days), and the time to initial ligament surgery was 64 days (IQR, 23 to 190 days). While the most common injury patterns were an anterior cruciate ligament tear combined with either a medial-sided (MLK 1-AM, 20.7%) or lateral-sided (MLK 1-AL, 23.2%) injury, one-third (34.7%) were bicruciate injuries. Associated injuries most often involved menisci (55.6%), nerves (18.5%) and tendons (15.6%). The method of surgical intervention (repair versus reconstruction), external fixator use, and staging of procedures varied by MLKI classification. Loss of motion (11.4%) was the most common postoperative complication. Conclusions: A better understanding of the clinical characteristics and management of the various MLKI patterns can be used to support clinical decision-making and individualized treatment of these complex injuries, and may ultimately lead to enhanced outcomes and reduced associated risks. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.