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

Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study

AIM

To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid.

SETTING

A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids.

PARTICIPANTS

People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms.

CONCLUSION

Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Can patients and clinicians find conservative management protocols of anterior cruciate ligament injuries online? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically search the internet for conservative rehabilitation protocols for people with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and critically appraise the websites and exercise protocols.

DESIGN

Systematic review of online rehabilitation protocols.

SEARCH

We searched four online search-engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Rehabilitation protocols on active, English language websites aimed at conservative (non-surgical) management of an ACL injury.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We extracted descriptive information and assessed quality of the websites using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the Health on the Net Code (HONcode) certificate, and the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE). We assessed completeness of exercise protocol reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). We performed a descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

We found 14 websites that met our selection criteria. The protocols varied between 10 and 26 weeks duration, nine were from the United States, five targeted patients, and 13 used multiple phases with a variety of different criteria for progression. Three protocols scored good quality with the JAMA, two were HonCode certified, and ten had good readability according to the FKRE. Completeness of exercise protocol reporting in all but one protocol was poor according to the CERT.

CONCLUSION

Few rehabilitation protocols for conservative management of ACL injuries were available online. Most of the websites showed good readability, but poor quality and credibility with inadequate description of exercise protocols.

Aspetar clinical practice guideline on rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

This guideline was developed to inform clinical practice on rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and was performed in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A Guideline Development Group systematically searched and reviewed evidence using randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions and guide clinicians and patients on the content of the optimal rehabilitation protocol after ACLR.The guideline targets patients during rehabilitation after ACLR and investigates the effectiveness of the available interventions to the physiotherapist, alone or in combination (eg, exercise, modalities, objective progression criteria). Exercise interventions should be considered the mainstay of ACLR rehabilitation. However, there is little evidence on the dose-response relationship between volume and/or intensity of exercise and outcomes. Physical therapy modalities can be helpful as an adjunct in the early phase of rehabilitation when pain, swelling and limitations in range of motion are present. Adding modalities in the early phase may allow earlier pain-free commencement of exercise rehabilitation. Return to running and return to training/activity are key milestones for rehabilitation after ACLR. However, there is no evidence on which progression or discharge criteria should be used.While there is a very low level of certainty for most components of rehabilitation, most of the recommendations provided in this guideline were agreed to by expert clinicians. This guideline also highlights several new elements of ACLR management not reported previously.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in better patient reported outcomes but has no advantage for activities of daily living or the subsequent development of osteoarthritis. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical reconstruction of ACL injuries is a common strategy but superiority over conservative treatment has not been established. The aim was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes between operative and non-operative treatment of ACL injuries.

METHODS

Systematic review of Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar, including all level 1-3 studies from 2000 to 2021. Patient reported outcome scores and objective measures for knee stability were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tools. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the body of evidence. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ2 and I² statistics.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in the analysis. All studies had a high risk of bias and were of low quality. The pooled estimates for IKDC (p = 0.040) favored surgical treatment. There were significant differences for activities of daily living (p = 0.0001) in favor of conservative treatment. There were significant differences for knee stability (p = 0.016) in favor of surgical treatment. The risk of osteoarthritis was not significantly different between the two treatment modalities (p = 0.219). Patients undergoing surgery had a 57% higher risk of osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

ACL reconstruction results in a significantly more stable knee with superior clinical and functional outcomes. However, these advantages over conservative treatment were not observed for routine activities of daily living, and subjective patient perceived outcomes favor nonsurgical treatment. Surgical treatment did not reduce the risk of later developing osteoarthritis. Regardless, due to low study quality and high risk of bias, these findings must be interpreted with caution.

Meniscal procedures are not increased with delayed ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation: results from a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether initial non-operative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures with optional delayed ACL reconstruction leads to more meniscal procedures compared with early ACL reconstruction during the 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

We compared the number of meniscal procedures of 167 patients with an ACL rupture, who either received early ACL reconstruction (n=85) or rehabilitation therapy plus optional delayed ACL reconstruction (n=82), participating in the Conservative vs Operative Methods for Patients with ACL Rupture Evaluation trial. Patients were aged 18 to 65 years (mean 31.3, SD 10.5), 60% male sex (n=100). We evaluated the presence and location of meniscal tears by baseline MRI. We analysed and compared how many patients per randomisation group had a meniscal procedure during follow-up in the ACL injured knee, adjusted for sex, body mass index, age group and orthopaedic surgeon.

RESULTS

At baseline, 41% of the entire study population (69/167 patients) had a meniscal tear on MRI. During the 2-year follow-up, 25 patients randomised to early ACL reconstruction (29%, 25/85 patients) had a meniscal procedure, compared with 17 patients randomised to rehabilitation plus optional delayed reconstruction (21%, 17/82 patients) (risk ratio 0.67 with 95% CI 0.40 to 1.12, p=0.12). Of these patients who received early ACL reconstruction (n=82) and patients that received delayed ACL reconstruction (n=41), 5% of the patients had an additional isolated meniscal procedure after ACL reconstruction. In patients who received no ACL reconstruction (n=41), 10% (n=4) had an isolated surgical procedure for a meniscal tear during the 2-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Initial non-surgical treatment of ACL ruptures followed by optional delayed ACL reconstruction does not lead to a higher number of meniscal procedures compared with early ACL reconstruction over a 2-year follow-up period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL 2618.

Primary surgery versus primary rehabilitation for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a living systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of primarily surgical versus primarily rehabilitative management for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.

DESIGN

Living systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Six databases, six trial registries and prior systematic reviews. Forward and backward citation tracking was employed.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared primary reconstructive surgery and primary rehabilitative treatment with or without optional reconstructive surgery.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Bayesian random effects meta-analysis with empirical priors for the OR and standardised mean difference and 95% credible intervals (CrI), Cochrane RoB2, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 9514 records, 9 reports of three studies (320 participants in total) were included. No clinically important differences were observed at any follow-up for self-reported knee function (low to very low certainty of evidence). For radiological knee osteoarthritis, we found no effect at very low certainty of evidence in the long term (OR (95% CrI): 1.45 (0.30 to 5.17), two studies). Meniscal damage showed no effect at low certainty of evidence (OR: 0.85 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.62); one study) in the long term. No differences were observed between treatments for any other secondary outcome. Three ongoing randomised controlled trials were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low to very low certainty of evidence that primary rehabilitation with optional surgical reconstruction results in similar outcome measures as early surgical reconstruction for ACL rupture. The findings challenge a historical paradigm that anatomic instability should be addressed with primary surgical stabilisation to provide optimal outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021256537.

Why, When, and in Which Patients Nonoperative Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Fails: An Exploratory Analysis of the COMPARE Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment strategy for patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is still under debate. Different determinants of the need for a reconstruction have not been thoroughly investigated before.

PURPOSE

To investigate why, when, and which patients with an ACL rupture who initially started with rehabilitation therapy required reconstructive surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

In the Conservative versus Operative Methods for Patients with ACL Rupture Evaluation (COMPARE) trial, 167 patients with an ACL rupture were randomized to early ACL reconstruction or rehabilitation therapy plus optional delayed ACL reconstruction. We conducted an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients from this trial who were randomized to rehabilitation therapy plus optional delayed ACL reconstruction. The reasons for surgery were registered for the patients who underwent a delayed ACL reconstruction. For these patients, we used the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Numeric Rating Scale for pain, and instability question from the Lysholm questionnaire before surgery. To determine between-group differences between the nonoperative treatment and delayed ACL reconstruction group, IKDC and pain scores during follow-up were determined using mixed models and adjusted for sex, age, and body mass index.

RESULTS

During the 2-year follow-up of the trial, 41 of the 82 patients received a delayed ACL reconstruction after a median time of 6.4 months after inclusion (interquartile range, 3.9-10.3 months). Most reconstructions occurred between 3 and 6 months after inclusion (n = 17; 41.5%). Ninety percent of the patients (n = 37) reported knee instability concerns as a reason for surgery at the moment of planning surgery. Of these patients, 18 had an IKDC score ≤60, 29 had a pain score of ≥3, and 33 patients had knee instability concerns according to the Lysholm questionnaire before surgery. During follow-up, IKDC scores were lower and pain scores were higher in the delayed reconstruction group compared with the nonoperative treatment group. Patients in the delayed reconstruction group had a significantly younger age (27.4 vs 35.3 years; P = .001) and higher preinjury activity level compared with patients in the nonoperative treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Patients who experienced instability concerns, had pain during activity, and had a low perception of their knee function had unsuccessful nonoperative treatment. Most patients received a delayed ACL reconstruction after 3 to 6 months of rehabilitation therapy. At baseline, patients who required reconstructive surgery had a younger age and higher preinjury activity level compared with patients who did not undergo reconstruction.

Effect of menstrual cycle phase, menstrual irregularities and hormonal contraceptive use on anterior knee laxity and non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injury occurrence in women: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Exercising women report three to six times more ACL tears than men, which happen, in the majority of cases, with a non-contact mechanism. This sex disparity has, in part, been attributed to the differences in reproductive hormone profiles between men and women. Many studies have shown that anterior knee (AK) laxity and the rate of non-contact ACL injuries vary across the menstrual cycle, but these data are inconsistent. Similarly, several studies have investigated the potential protective effect of hormonal contraceptives on non-contact ACL injuries, but their conclusions are also variable. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to, identify, evaluate and summarise the effects of endogenous and exogenous ovarian hormones on AK laxity (primary outcome) and the occurrence of non-contact ACL injuries (secondary outcome) in women. We will perform a systematic search for all observational studies conducted on this topic. Studies will be retrieved by searching electronic databases, clinical trial registers, author's personal files and cross-referencing selected studies. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort and Case-Control Studies. Certainty in the cumulative evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The meta-analyses will use a Bayesian approach to address specific research questions in a more intuitive and probabilistic manner. This review is registered on the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42021252365).

Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance

Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.

[Consequences of anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic umbrella review]

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.

Clinical, Functional, and Physical Activity Outcomes 5 Years Following the Treatment Algorithm of the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries can be treated with or without ACL reconstruction (ACLR), and more high-quality studies evaluating outcomes after the different treatment courses are needed. The purpose of the present study was to describe and compare 5-year clinical, functional, and physical activity outcomes for patients who followed our decision-making and treatment algorithm and chose (1) early ACLR with preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, (2) delayed ACLR with preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, or (3) progressive rehabilitation alone. Early ACLR was defined as that performed ≤6 months after the preoperative rehabilitation program, and late ACLR was defined as that performed >6 months after the preoperative rehabilitation program.

METHODS

We included 276 patients from a prospective cohort study. The patients had been active in jumping, pivoting, and cutting sports before the injury and sustained a unilateral ACL injury without substantial concomitant knee injuries. The patients chose their treatment through a shared decision-making process. At 5 years, we assessed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx Activity Rating Scale, sports participation, quadriceps muscle strength, single-legged hop performance, and new ipsilateral and contralateral knee injuries.

RESULTS

The 5-year follow-up rate was 80%. At 5 years, 64% of the patients had undergone early ACLR, 11% had undergone delayed ACLR, and 25% had had progressive rehabilitation alone. Understandably, the choices that participants made differed by age, concomitant injuries, symptoms, and predominantly level-I versus level-II preinjury activity level. There were no significant differences in any clinical, functional, or physical activity outcomes among the treatment groups. Across treatment groups, 95% to 100% of patients were still active in some kind of sports and 65% to 88% had IKDC-SKF and KOOS scores above the threshold for a patient acceptable symptom state.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with ACL injury who were active in jumping, pivoting, and cutting sports prior to injury; who had no substantial concomitant knee injuries; and who followed our decision-making and treatment algorithm had good 5-year knee function and high sport participation rates. Three of 4 patients had undergone ACLR within 5 years. There were no significant differences in any outcomes among patients treated with early ACLR, delayed ACLR, or progressive rehabilitation alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Preliminary experience of an international orthopaedic registry: the ESSKA Paediatric Anterior Cruciate Ligament Initiative (PAMI) registry

Paediatric and adolescent ACL injuries are an emerging health burden, increasing at a higher rate than in adults. They compromise quality of life, affect knee structure and function, lead to the early development of osteoarthritis and are a serious economic burden due to shortened professional careers and subsequent surgeries. Up to 35% of children and adolescents will experience a second ACL injury and this population particularly at high risk of secondary intraarticular soft tissue degeneration and growth abnormalities. However, there is still a lack of high-quality outcome studies on this specific population and many knowledge gaps persist in the current treatment guidelines. It is currently unknown whether ACL reconstruction in this young population decreases the risk of irreversible secondary intraarticular soft tissue degeneration. Furthermore, it is not known whether return to high or elite level sports after paediatric ACL injury or reconstruction should be recommended. The relatively low number of paediatric ACL injuries seen in each hospital makes it necessary to conduct international multi-centre studies to collect robust data to provide evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of these injuries. The Paediatric Anterior Cruciate Ligament Initiative (PAMI) was thus started by the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery & Arthroscopy and opened for patient inclusion in 2018. This comprehensive overview of the first 2 years of the PAMI registry shows that the project is now well consolidated and accepted by the European orthopaedic community. Future challenges include ensuring additional external funding to ascertain long term sustainability and continuous dissemination of the knowledge acquired in scientific journals.

Decision Making for Treatment After ACL Injury From an Orthopaedic Surgeon and Patient Perspective: Results From the NACOX Study

Background:

In the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, there is little evidence of when and why a decision for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) or nonoperative treatment (non-ACLR) is made.

Purpose:

To (1) describe the key characteristics of ACL injury treatment decisions and (2) compare patient-reported knee instability, function, and preinjury activity level between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A total of 216 patients with acute ACL injury were evaluated during the first year after injury. The treatment decision was non-ACLR in 73 patients and ACLR in 143. Reasons guiding treatment decision were obtained from medical charts and questionnaires to patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported instability and function were obtained via questionnaires and compared between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. The ACLR treatment group was classified retrospectively by decision phase: acute phase (decision made between injury day and 31 days after injury), subacute phase (decision made between 32 days and up to 5 months after injury), and late phase (decision made 5-12 months after injury). Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate.

Results:

The main reasons for a non-ACLR treatment decision were no knee instability and no problems with knee function. The main reasons for an ACLR treatment decision were high activity demands and knee instability. Patients in the non-ACLR group were significantly older (P = .031) and had a lower preinjury activity level than did those in the acute-phase (P < .01) and subacute-phase (P = .006) ACLR decision groups. There were no differences in patient-reported instability and function between treatment decision groups at baseline, 4 weeks after injury, or 3 months after injury.

Conclusion:

Activity demands, not patient-reported knee instability, may be the most important factor in the decision-making process for treatment after ACL injury. We suggest a decision-making algorithm for patients with ACL injuries and no high activity demands; waiting for >3 months can help distinguish those who need surgical intervention from those who can undergo nonoperative management.

Registration:

NCT02931084 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Hamstrings substitution via anteromedial portal with optional anterolateral ligament reconstruction is the preferred surgical technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a survey among ESSKA members

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to report on a worldwide web-based survey among the ESSKA community developed to investigate current recommendations regarding ACL reconstruction surgical procedures.

METHODS

All contacts in the official mailing list of the ESSKA were contacted to investigate preferences regarding graft type, anterolateral ligament reconstruction, femoral tunnel drilling technique, single-bundle vs double-bundle technique, femoral and tibial fixation methods.

RESULTS

Eight-hundred and twenty responses were analyzed. Hamstrings autograft was the graft of choice in male patients for 634 (79%) and in female patients for 674 (84%) responders, while its preference for ACL reconstruction in professional athletes was for 401 (50%). 480 (63%) surgeons surveyed would include anterolateral ligament reconstruction only if diagnosed and remaining instability after ACL surgery or revision. 598 (75%) respondents were in favor of anteromedial portal for femoral tunnel drilling. The most popular femoral fixation technique was found to be cortical suspension (500-66%), while a compression system was preferred on the tibial side by 537 (71% of the sample).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey study found that HT autograft, single-bundle reconstruction, anteromedial portal for femoral tunnel drilling, cortical suspension systems for femoral fixation and compression systems for tibial fixation represent the current standard of ACLR in a large community of orthopedic surgeons. The present study performed with surgeons who are members of the ESSKA community will help to comprehend the actual ACLR worldwide practice patterns. Due to low response rate, these results should be interpreted with caution and not to be intended to represent the state of the art of ESSKA community.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.