Citations

Purpose Part-two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA- American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) - American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1-9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8-9) and a mean of 7.92 +/- 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-Operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and time-based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion This international EU-US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non-operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence I, Formal Consensus.

Purpose: Part II of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, nonoperative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results: Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (3 Grade A ratings, 4 Grade B, 3 Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and timebased. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion: This international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of nonoperated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence: Level I, consensus.

AbstractPurposePart two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures.MethodsThis consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability.ResultsLow to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programmes and through avoidance of certain activities. Non‐operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion‐based and time‐based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance‐based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process.ConclusionThis international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non‐operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists.Level of EvidenceLevel I, consensus.

Purpose The aim of part-one of this EU-US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programs, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) will be presented in a part-II article. Methods This consensus followed ESSKA “formal consensus” methodology. For this combined ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy), AOSSM (American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine), ASSPT (American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy) initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (USA and 13 European countries) including orthopedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature, proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations reaching final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to adress the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence of the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), one received a grade A of recommendation, two a grade B, nine a grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1-9) and the global mean rating was 8.4+/-0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion-based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time-based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion-based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated, and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence I, Consensus.

Abstract Purpose The aim of part one of this EU‐US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programmes, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures will be presented in a part II article. Methods This consensus followed the European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA)'s ‘formal consensus’ methodology. For this combined ESSKA, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (US and 13 European countries), including orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature and proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations, reaching a final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to address the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence in the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), 1 received a Grade A of recommendation, 2 a Grade B, 9 a Grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1–9). The global mean rating was 8.4 ± 0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion‐based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time‐based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion‐based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence Level I, consensus.

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.

AbstractPurposeThe present study reviews the available scientific literature on artificial intelligence (AI)‐assisted ultrasound‐guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA) and evaluates the reported intraprocedural parameters and postprocedural outcomes.MethodsA literature search was performed on 19 September 2023, using the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases by experts in electronic searching. All study designs were considered with no restrictions regarding patient characteristics or cohort size. Outcomes assessed included the accuracy of AI‐model tracking, success at the first attempt, differences in outcomes between AI‐assisted and unassisted UGRA, operator feedback and case‐report data.ResultsA joint adaptive median binary pattern (JAMBP) has been applied to improve the tracking procedure, while a particle filter (PF) is involved in feature extraction. JAMBP combined with PF was most accurate on all images for landmark identification, with accuracy scores of 0.83, 0.93 and 0.93 on original, preprocessed and filtered images, respectively. Evaluation of first‐attempt success of spinal needle insertion revealed first‐attempt success in most patients. When comparing AI application versus UGRA alone, a significant statistical difference (p < 0.05) was found for correct block view, correct structure identification and decrease in mean injection time, needle track adjustments and bone encounters in favour of having AI assistance. Assessment of operator feedback revealed that expert and nonexpert operator feedback was overall positive.ConclusionAI appears promising to enhance UGRA as well as to positively influence operator training. AI application of UGRA may improve the identification of anatomical structures and provide guidance for needle placement, reducing the risk of complications and improving patient outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

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.