Results of a tri-national online survey on the current status of sports injury prevention among members of the German-Speaking Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Society (GOTS)

Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part I-diagnostics and preoperative planning

PURPOSE

The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in ACL revision.

METHODS

The European expert surgeons and scientists were divided into four groups to participate in this consensus. A "literature group" (four surgeons); "steering group" (14 surgeons and scientists); "rating group" (19 surgeons) and finally "peer review group" (51 representatives of the ESSKA-affiliated national societies from 27 countries). The steering group prepared eighteen question-answer sets. The quality of the answers received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientific support), to B (scientific presumption), C (low level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). These question-answer sets were then evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 to 9. The comments of the rating group were incorporated by the steering group and the consensus was submitted to the rating group a second time. Once a general consensus was 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 held to ratify the document.

RESULTS

The literature review for the diagnosis and preoperative planning of ACL revision revealed a rather low scientific quality. None of the 18 questions was graded A and six received a grade B. The mean rating of all the questions by the rating group was 8.4 ± 0.3. The questions and recommendations are listed below.

CONCLUSION

ACL revision surgery is a widely debated subject with many different opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardisation. Therefore, this international consensus project is of great importance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

The awareness of injury prevention programmes is insufficient among French- and German-speaking sports medicine communities in Europe

PURPOSE

Evaluate the current state of sports injury prevention perception, knowledge and practice among sports medicine professionals located in Western Europe and involved in injury prevention.

METHODS

Members of two different sports medicine organizations (GOTS and ReFORM) were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire (in German and in French, respectively) addressing perception, knowledge and implementation of sports injury prevention through 22 questions.

RESULTS

766 participants from a dozen of countries completed the survey. Among them, 43% were surgeons, 23% sport physicians and 18% physiotherapists working mainly in France (38%), Germany (23%) and Belgium (10%). The sample rated the importance of injury prevention as "high" or "very high" in a majority of cases (91%), but only 54% reported to be aware of specific injury prevention programmes. The French-speaking world was characterized by lower levels of reported knowledge, unfamiliarity with existing prevention programmes and less weekly time spent on prevention as compared to their German-speaking counterparts. Injury prevention barriers reported by the respondents included mainly insufficient expertise, absence of staff support from sports organizations and lack of time.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of awareness regarding injury prevention concepts among sports medicine professionals of the European French- and German-speaking world. This gap varied according to the professional occupation and working country. Relevant future paths for improvement include specific efforts to build awareness around sports injury prevention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Does prevention pay off? Economic aspects of sports injury prevention: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify, summarise and critically assess economic evaluation studies on sports injury prevention strategies.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, SportDiscuss.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

The current literature was searched following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Economic analyses published since 2010 were checked for inclusion. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Oxford Level of Evidence for economic and decision analysis; underlying randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were rated according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale, and risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Ten studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The quality assessment revealed limited data quality. For trial-based analysis, underlying RCTs were of good quality and had a low risk of bias. Prevention concepts for general injury reduction showed effectiveness and cost savings. Regarding specific injury types, the analysis of the studies showed that the best data are available for ankle, hamstring and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Measures using specific training interventions were the predominant form of prevention concepts; studies investigating these concepts showed cost-effectiveness with total cost savings between €24.82 and €462 per athlete.

CONCLUSION

Injury prevention strategies that were studied are cost-effective. However, estimates and outcomes vary throughout the included studies, and precluded pooling of existing data. Knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of evaluated prevention measures will help improve the acceptance and application of prevention initiatives.