Folgen einer vorderen Kreuzbandruptur – Ein systematisches Umbrella-Review

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Die Behandlung einer vorderen Kreuzbandruptur wird nach wie vor kontrovers diskutiert. Insbesondere die Frage: Konservative oder operative Versorgung? steht dabei im Mittelpunkt. Für die Beantwortung dieser Frage werden häufig Folgeschäden wie die Entwicklung einer posttraumatischen Arthrose, Sekundärschäden am Meniskus oder Knorpel und auch die Partizipation im Sport herangezogen. Sollten zwischen den einzelnen Behandlungsoptionen bedeutsame Unterschiede bezüglich dieser Parameter bestehen, so wären die Ergebnisse für die Entwicklung evidenzbasierter Behandlungspfade von hoher Bedeutung. Ziel dieser Arbeit war es daher, die Entwicklung einer Gonarthrose nach einer Ruptur des vorderen Kreuzbandes und der entsprechenden Behandlung (konservativ oder operativ) zu evaluieren.

Material und Methoden Zur Beantwortung der Fragestellung wurde eine systematische Literaturrecherche in der Medline über Pubmed, der Cochrane Library und in CINAHL durchgeführt. Die Recherche wurde im Januar 2020 durchgeführt und im Januar 2021 wiederholt. Eingeschlossen wurden ausschließlich systematische Reviews mit einem minimalen Nachuntersuchungszeitraum von 10 Jahren. Untersuchte Kohorten umfassten Patienten mit einer entweder konservativ oder operativ versorgten Ruptur des vorderen Kreuzbandes. Die Diagnose Arthrose wurde entweder radiologisch (anerkannte Scores) oder klinisch (Schmerz und Funktionseinschränkung) gestellt. Passende Übersichtsarbeiten wurden mit dem AMSTAR-2-Fragebogen einer qualitativen Bewertung unterzogen.

Ergebnisse Die Literaturrecherche ermittelte zunächst n = 42 Übersichtsarbeiten, von denen 14 Arbeiten inkludiert werden konnten. Nach der Volltextprüfung und der qualitativen Bewertung verblieben zur Auswertung der Ergebnisse lediglich n = 2 systematische Reviews. Die Ergebnisse beider Arbeiten zeigen unpräzise Daten mit einer großen Variabilität. Es kann aber mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit davon ausgegangen werden, dass das Risiko für die Entwicklung einer Gonarthrose nach einer Ruptur des vorderen Kreuzbandes erhöht ist. Eine Reduktion der Inzidenz der Gelenkdegeneration durch eine Rekonstruktion des vorderen Kreuzbandes ist nicht nachweisbar, genauso wenig wie ein Unterschied bei einem direkten Vergleich zwischen konservativer und operativer Versorgung.

Schlussfolgerung Patienten mit einer vorderen Kreuzbandruptur tragen mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit ein größeres Risiko für eine progressive Gelenkdegeneration. Ein pauschaler protektiver Effekt einer Kreuzbandplastik ist in den ausgewerteten Arbeiten nicht nachweisbar. Aus diesem Grund sollten innerhalb der Entscheidungsfindung über operative versus konservative Versorgung andere Faktoren wie die funktionelle Instabilität noch höher bewertet werden.

Abstract

Introduction The treatment of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture is still controversial. In particular, this applies to the question of conservative versus surgical treatment. The answer to this question is often based on consequential damage such as the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, secondary damage to the meniscus or cartilage, and participation in sports. If there are significant differences in these parameters between the individual treatment options, the results will be of great importance for the development of evidence-based treatment pathways. Therefore, the aim of this work was to evaluate the development of knee osteoarthritis after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament and the corresponding treatment (conservative or surgical).

Material and methods To answer the above question, a systematic literature search was conducted in Medline via Pubmed, the Cochrane Library and in CINAHL. Only systematic reviews with a minimum follow-up period of 10 years were included. The search was conducted in January 2020 and updated in January 2021. Investigated cohorts included patients with a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament who had undergone either conservative or surgical treatment. Osteoarthritis was diagnosed either radiologically (recognized scores) or clinically (pain and impaired function). Appropriate reviews were qualitatively evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 questionnaire.

Results The literature research initially identified n = 42 reviews from which 14 reviews were included. After full-text review and qualitative evaluation, only n = 2 systematic reviews remained for evaluation. The results of both papers show imprecise data with a high variability. However, it can be assumed with high probability that the development of osteoarthritis of the knee is increased after a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. There is no evidence that the incidence of joint degeneration may be reduced by reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament, nor is there a difference when comparing conservative and surgical treatment directly.

Conclusion Patients with an anterior cruciate ligament rupture are likely to be at a greater risk of developing progressive joint degeneration. A protective effect of cruciate ligament surgery has not been found in the evaluated studies. A general argument in favour of cruciate ligament surgery aiming to achieve a protective effect on hyaline articular cartilage seems obsolete based on the results and should therefore not be used in patient education in the future.

Schlüsselwörter

VKB - Arthrose - Spätfolgen - Übersichtsarbeit

Key words

ACL - osteoarthritis - prevention - review

Publication History

Article published online:
20 September 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Sandon A, Engström B, Forssblad M. High risk of further acl injury in a 10-year follow-up study of acl-reconstructed soccer players in the Swedish national knee ligament registry. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2020; 36: 189
• 2 Lindanger L, Strand T, Molster AO. Return to play and long-term partizipation in pivoting sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; 47: 3339
• 3 Mohtadi NG, Chan DS. Return to sport-specific performance after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2018; 46: 3307
• 4 Zadro HJR, IA AC. Choosing wisely after a sport and exercise-related injury. Best Practice&Research Clinical Rheumatology 2019; 33: 16
• 5 Zadro PJRE. Time for a different approach to anterior cruciate ligament injuries: educate and create realistic expectations. Sports Medicine 2019; 49: 357
• 6 Filbay G SR, H. Evidence-based recommendations for the management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Best Practice&Research Clinical Rheumatology 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.berh.2019.01.018.
• 7 Ardern C, Kvist J, Webster KE. Psychological aspects of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Operative techniques in Sports Medicine 2016; 24: 77
• 8 Langer G, Meerpohl JJ, Perleth M. et al. GRADE Guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. ZEFQ 2012; 106: 357-368 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.05.017.
• 9 Riccardo C, Fabio C, Pietro R. Knee osteoarthritis after reconstruction of isolated anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a systematic literature review. Joints 2017; 5: 39
• 10 Devitt BM, Bouguennec N, KW B. Combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tendodesis does not result in an increased rate of osteoarthritis: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2017; 25: 1149
• 11 Sonnery-Cottet B, Barbosa NC, TD V. Clinical outcomes of extra-articular tenodesis/anterolateral reconstruction in the acl injured knee. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2018; 26: 596
• 12 DiSilvestro KJ, Jauregui JJ, Glazier E. Outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in obese and overweight patients: a systematic review. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 2019; 29: 257
• 13 Mehl J, Otto A, JB B. The acl-deficient knee and the prevalence of meniscus and cartilage lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42017076897. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2019; 139: 819
• 14 Mathewson G, Kooner S, R R. Does a delay in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction increase the incidence of secondary pathology in the knee? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0000000000000762.
• 15 Leiter JRS, Gourlay R, McRae S. et al. Long-term follow-up of ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22: 1061-1069 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2466-3.
• 16 Vaishya R, Okwuchukwu MC, AK A. Does anterior cruciate reconstruction prevent or initiate knee osteoarthritis? A critical review. Journal of Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery 2019; DOI: 10.1016/j.jajs.2019.04.001.
• 17 Delincé P, Ghafil D. Anterior cruciate ligament tears: conservative or surgical treatment? A critical review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20: 48-61 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-011-1614-x.
• 18 van Meer BL, Meuffels DE, van Eijsden WA. et al. Which determinants predict tibiofemoral and patellofemoral osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2015; 49: 975-983 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093258.
• 19 Xie X, Xiao Z, Q L. Increased incidence of osteoarthritis of knee joint after acl reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts than hamstring autografts: a meta-analysis of 1443 patients at a minimum of 5 years. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery Traumatology 2015; 25: 149
• 20 Alentorn-Geli E, Lajaro F, G S. The transtibial versus the anteromedial portal technique in the arthroscopic bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2010; 18: 1013
• 21 Monk AP, Davies LJ, S H. Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011166.pub2.
• 22 Poehling-Monaghan KL, Salem H, KE R. Long-term outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 2017; 5: 2325967117709735 DOI: 10.1177/2325967117709735.
• 23 Van Ginckel A, Verdonk P, Witvrouw E. Cartilage adaptation after anterior cruciate ligament injury and reconstruction: implications for clinical management and research? A systematic review of longitudinal MRI studies. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2013; 21: 1009-1024 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.04.015.
• 24 Davey MS, Hurley ET, D W. Anterior crcuiate ligament reconstruction with platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review of randomized control trials. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2020; 36: 1204
• 25 Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, DA H. Comparing hamstring autograft with hybrid graft for anterior crcuiate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Journal fo Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2020; 36: 1189
• 26 Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, DA H. Knee osteoarthritis after single-bundle-versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2019; 35: 996
• 27 Sarraj M, Coughlin RP, M S. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with concomitant meniscal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2019; 27: 3441
• 28 Dong Z, Niu Y, J Q. Long term results after double and single bundle acl reconstruction: is therre any difference? A meta-analysis or randomized controlled trials. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcia 2019; 53: 92
• 29 Zhao L, Lu M, M D. Outcome of bone-patellar tendon-bone vs. hamstring tendon autograft for anterior crcuiate ligament reconstruction. Medicine Open 2020; 99: 48
• 30 Huang W, Ong TY, SC F. Prevalence of patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury and associated risk factors: a systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 2020; 22: 14
• 31 Littlefield CP, Belk JW, DA H. The anterolateral ligemant oft he knee: an updated systeamtic review of anatomy, biomechanics, and clinical outcomes. The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2021; DOI: 10.1016/jarthro.2020.12.190.
• 32 DePhillipo NN, Cinque ME, J C. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction techniques, biomechanics, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2017; 33: 1575
• 33 Xu C, Chen J, E C. The effect of combined anterolateral and acl reconstruction on reducing pivot shift rate and clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.10.017.
• 34 Yin J, Yang K, D Z. Anatomic reconstruction oft he anterior crcuiate ligament of the knee with or without reconstruction oft he anterolateral ligament: a meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaeidc Surgery 2021; 29: 1
• 35 Ra HJ, Kim JH, Lee DH. Comparative clinical outcomes of anterolateral ligament reconstruction versus extra-articular tenodesis in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 2020; 140: 923
• 36 Ajuied A, Wong F, C S. Anterior cruciate ligament injury and radiologic progression of knee osteoarthritis. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2014; 42: 2242
• 37 Belk JW, Kraeutler MJ, TJ C. Knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone versus hamstring tendon autograft: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2018; 34: 1358
• 38 Chalmers PN, Mall NA, M M. Does acl reconstruction alter natural history?. Amercian Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2014; 96: 292
• 39 Chen T, Wang S, Y L. Radiographic osteoarthritis prevalence over ten years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; 40: 683
• 40 Cinque ME, Dornan GJ, Chahla J. et al. High Rates of Osteoarthritis Develop After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery: An Analysis of 4108 Patients. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46: 2011-2019 DOI: 10.1177/0363546517730072.
• 41 Claes S, Hermie L. R V. is osteoarthritis an inevitable consequence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2013; 21: 1967
• 42 Harris KP, Driban JB, MR S. Tibiofemoral osteoarthritis after surgical or nonsurgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic review. Journal of Athletic Training 2017; 52: 507
• 43 Lie MM, Risberg MA, K S. What`s the rate of knee osteoarthritis 10 years after anterior cruciate ligament injury? An updated systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099751.
• 44 Lien-Iversen T, Barklin Morgan D, C J. Does surgery reduce knee osteoarthritis, meniscal injury and subsequent complications compared with non-surgery after acl rupture with at least 10 years follow-up? A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-100765.
• 45 Luc B, Gribble PA, Pietrosimone BG. Osteoarthritis prevalence following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and numbers-needed-to-treat analysis. Journal of Athletic Training 2014; 49: 806
• 46 Poulsen E, Goncalves GH, A B. Knee osteoarthritis risk is increased 4–6 fold after knee injury – a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; 53: 1454
• 47 Smith TO, Postle K, F P. Is reconstruction the best management strategy for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus non-operative treatment. The Knee 2014; 21: 462
• 48 Spahn G, Schiltenwolf M, B H. Das zeitabhängige Arthroserisiko nach vorderer Kreuzbandverletzung. Orthopäde 2016; 45: 81
• 49 Rothrauff BB, Jorge A, D S. Anatomic acl reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology 2020; 28: 1072
• 50 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.
• 51 Perleth M, Langer G, JJ M. GRADE-Leitlinien: 7. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz – Inkonsistenz. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2012; 106: 733-744 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.018.
• 52 Meerpohl JJ, Langer G, M P. GRADE-Leitlinien: 3. Bewertung der Qualität der Evidenz (Vertrauen in die Effektschätzer. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2012; 106: 449-456 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.013.
• 53 Meerpohl JJ, Langer G, M P. GRADE-Leitlinien: 4. Bewertung der Qualität der Evidenz – Studienlimitationen. Risiko für Bias. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2012; 106: 457-469 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.014.
• 54 Rasch A, Perleth M, G L. GRADE-Leitlinien: 8. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz – Indirektheit. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2012; 106: 745-753 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.019.
• 55 Nolting A, Perleth M, G L. GRADE-Leitlinien: 5. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz – Publikationsbias. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2012; 106: 670-676 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.10.015.
• 56 Pereira D, Peleteiro B, J A. The effect of osteoarthritis definition on prevalence and incidence estimates: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2011; 19: 1270
• 57 Cross M, Smith E, D H. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Annals of the Rheumatic Disease 2014; 73: 1323
• 58 Achtnich A, Akoto R, Petersen W. Indikation zum Ersatz des vorderen Kreuzbandes. Knie Journal 2019; 1: 83
• 59 Mehl J, Scheffler S, W P. Protektiver Effekt der Vorderen-Kreuzband-Plastik. Knie Journal 2019; 1: 85
• 60 Petersen W, Scheffler S, Mehl J. Der präventive Effekt der Kreuzband-Plastik im Hinblick auf sekundäre Meniskus- und Knorpelschäden. Sportorthopädie & Sporttraumatologie 2018; 34: 93
• 61 Gerstein HC, McMurray J, Holman RR. Real-world studies no substitute for rcts in establishing efficacy. Lancet 2019; 393: 210
• 62 Gueyffier F, Cucherat M. The limitations of observation studies for decision making regarding drugs efficacy and safety. Therapie 2019; 74: 181
• 63 Hemkens LG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JPA. Agreement of treatment effects for mortality from routinely collected data and subsequent randomized trials: meta-epidemiological survey. British Medical Journal 2016; 352: 439
• 64 Frobell RB, Roos EM. Roos HP A Randomized Trial of Treatment for Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears. The New England Journal of Medicine 2010; 22: 342
• 65 Decary S, Fallaha M, S B. Clinical diagnsois of partial or complete anterior cruciate ligament tears using patients history elements and physical examination tests. PlosOne 2018; 13: 0198797
• 66 Eggerding V, Meuffels DE, SMA B-Z. Factors related to the need for surgical reconstruction after anterior cruciate ligament ruputre: a systematic review oft he literature. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy 2015; 45: 37
• 67 Sundemo D, Sernert N, J K. Increased postoperative manual knee laxity at 2-years results in inferior long-term subjective outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2018; 46: 2632
• 68 Hunt ER, Jacobs CA, EW C. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction reinitiates an inflammatory and chondrodegenerative process in the knee joint. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2020; DOI: 10.1002/jor.24783.
• 69 Amano K, Huebner JL, TV S. Synovial fluid profile at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and its association with cartilage matrix composition 3 years after surgery. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2018; 46: 890
• 70 Larsson S, Struglics A, la LLS. Surgical reconstruction of ruptured anterior cruciate ligament prolongs trauma-induced increase of inflammatory cytokines in synovial fluid: an exploratory analysis in the KANON trial. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2017; 25: 1443
• 71 Hunter DJ. Osteoarthritis B-ZS. The Lancet 2019; 393: 1745
• 72 Maffulli N, Oliva F. Coper Classification Early After ACL Rupture Changes with Progressive Neuromuscular and Strength Training and Is Associated With 2-Year Success: Letter to the Editor. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2019; 47: 64-65
• 73 Fu FH, Byrne KJ, BM G. Editorial commentary: remember the risk factors during individualized, anatomic, value-based anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2021; 37: 206
• 74 Reijman M, Eggerding V, van Es E. et al. Early surgical reconstruction versus rehabilitation with elective delayed reconstruction for patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture: COMPARE randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2021; 372: n375 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n375.
• 75 Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM. et al. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial. BMJ 2013; 346: f232 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f232.
• 76 Tsoukas D, Fotopoulos V, Basdekis G. et al. No difference in osteoarthritis after surgical and non-surgical treatment of ACL-injured knees after 10 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24: 2953-2959 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3593-9.
• 77 Diermeier TA, Rothrauff BB, Engebretsen L. et al. Treatment after ACL injury: Panther Symposium ACL Treatment Consensus Group. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2021; 55: 14-22
• 78 Lai CC, Ardern CL, Feller JA. et al. Eighty-three per cent of elite athletes return to preinjury sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review with meta-analysis of return to sport rates, graft rupture rates and performance outcomes. British journal of sports medicine 2018; 52: 128-138
• 79 DeFazio MW, Curry EJ, Gustin MJ. et al. Return to Sport After ACL Reconstruction With a BTB Versus Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med 2020; 8: 2325967120964919 DOI: 10.1177/2325967120964919.
• 80 van Yperen DT, Reijman M, van Es EM. et al. Twenty-year follow-up study comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament ruptures in high-level athletes. The American journal of sports medicine 2018; 46: 1129-1136
• 81 Grindem H, Eitzen I, Moksnes H. et al. A Pair-Matched Comparison of Return to Pivoting Sports at 1 Year in Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Injured Patients After a Nonoperative Versus an Operative Treatment Course. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40: 2509-2516 DOI: 10.1177/0363546512458424.
• 82 Weiler R, Monte-Colombo M, Mitchell A. et al. Non-operative management of a complete anterior cruciate ligament injury in an English Premier League football player with return to play in less than 8 weeks: applying common sense in the absence of evidence. Case Reports 2015; 2015: bcr2014208012
• 83 Van der List JP, Hagemans FJA, Hofstee DJ. et al. The role of patient characteristics in the success of nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2020; 48: 1647
• 84 Korpershoek JV, de Windt TS, Vonk LA. et al. Does Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Protect the Meniscus and Its Repair? A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med 2020; 8: 2325967120933895 DOI: 10.1177/2325967120933895.
• 85 Snoeker BA, Roemer FW, Turkiewicz A. et al. Does early anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction prevent development of meniscal damage? Results from a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med 2020; 54: 612-617 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101125.
• 86 Ekås GR, Ardern CL, Grindem H. et al. Evidence too weak to guide surgical treatment decisions for anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review of the risk of new meniscal tears after anterior cruciate ligament injury. British journal of sports medicine 2020; 54: 520-527
• 87 Filbay SR. Early ACL reconstruction is required to prevent additional knee injury: a misconception not supported by high-quality evidence. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine; 2019
• 88 Oole B, Meuffels DE, Oei EHG. et al. Comment on:‘Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction performed within 12 months of the index injury is associated with a lower rate of medial meniscus tears’ by Mok et al. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2019; 27: 4062-4063
• 89 Winkler PW, Hughes JD, Musahl V. Respect the posterior tibial slope and make slope-reducing osteotomies an integral part of the surgical outcome. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2020; 36: 2278
• 90 Sonnery-Cottet B, Saithna A. Editorial commentary: let's all agree-anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outocmes need to be improved and extra-articular procedures have an essential role. Journal of Arthroscopy and Related Surgery 2020; 36: 1702
• 91 Wirth W, Eckstein F, Culvenor AG. et al. Early anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not affect 5 year change in knee cartilage thickness: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021; DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.01.004.
• 92 Eggerding V, Reijman M, Meuffels DE. et al. ACL reconstruction for all is not cost-effective after acute ACL rupture. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2021; DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102564.
• 93 Thoma LM, Grindem H, Logerstedt D. et al. Coper classification early after ACL rupture changes with progressive neuromuscular and strength training and is associated with two-year success: the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study. The American journal of sports medicine 2019; 47: 807
• 94 Culvenor AG, Barton CJ. ACL injuries: the secret probably lies in optimising rehabilitation. British journal of sports medicine 2018; 52: 1416-1418
• 95 Walker A, Hing W, Lorimer A. The Influence, Barriers to and Facilitators of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rehabilitation Adherence and Participation: a Scoping Review. Sports medicine-open 2020; 6: 1-22
• 96 Webster KE, Feller JA. Psychological Factors Influencing Return to Sport After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. In: Musahl V, Karlsson J, Krutsch W. et al. (eds) Return to Play in Football. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2018