ReviewKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023
Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus: part II-surgical strategy.
Review in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of increased posterior tibial slope in ACL deficiency: A narrative review and recommendation of the Osteotomy Committee of the German Knee Society.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Review
- APKASS 2024 consensus statement on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Part II: Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2026Article
- Middle Eastern male ACL-deficient patients exhibit steeper posterior tibial slope than European counterparts: A cross-cultural matched cohort study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Advances in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Risk stratification, graft choices, and functional recovery in 2026.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Radiographic medial posterior tibial slope ≥16° predicts multiple revisions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Individualized indication for slope changing osteotomy in ACL insufficiency: the Avalanche Concept.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A formal ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 2-Cell-based therapy.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
- Second revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using achilles tendon allograft: a case series of 20 patients at mid-term follow-up.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Article
- Risk factors for ACL revision failure and optimum graft size for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- Over-the-Top Double-Bundle Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique With Hybrid Hamstring Tendon Autograft-Allograft and Associated Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis.Arthroscopy techniques · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 14 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert opinion to improve the diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in Anterior Cruciate Ligament revision.
methodsPart 2, presented herein, followed exactly the same methodology as Part 1: the so-called ESSKA formal consensus derived from the Delphi method. Eighteen questions were ultimately asked. The quality of the answers received the following grades of recommendation: Grade A (high level scientific support), Grade B (scientific presumption), Grade C (low level scientific support) or Grade D (expert opinion). All answers were scored from 1 to 9 by the raters. Once a general consensus had been reached between the steering and rating groups, the question-answer sets were submitted to the peer-review group. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was then held to ratify the document.
resultsThe review of the literature revealed a rather low scientific quality of studies examining the surgical strategy in cases of ACL reconstruction failure. Of the 18 questions, only 1 received a Grade A rating; 5, a Grade B rating; and 9, grades of C or D. The three remaining complex questions received further evaluations for each portion of the question and were looked at in more detail for the following grades: B and D; A, C and D; or A, B, C and D. The mean rating of all questions by the rating group was 8.0 + - 1.1. The questions and recommendations are listed in the article.
conclusionACL revision surgery, especially the surgical strategy, is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardization. Therefore, this international European consensus project is of great importance and clinical relevance for guiding the management of ACL revision in adults. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.