ESSKA consensus initiative: why, when and how?

Osteotomy around the painful degenerative varus knee has broader indications than conventionally described but must follow a strict planning process: ESSKA Formal Consensus Part I

PURPOSE

The European consensus was designed with the objective of combining science and expertise to produce recommendations that would educate and provide guidance in the treatment of the painful degenerative varus knee. Part I focused on indications and planning.

METHODS

Ninety-four orthopaedic surgeons from 24 European countries were involved in the consensus, which focused on the most common indications for osteotomy around the knee. The consensus was performed according to an established ESSKA methodology. The questions and recommendations made were initially designed by the consensus steering group. And 'best possible' answers were provided based upon the scientific evidence available and the experience of the experts. The statements produced were further evaluated by ratings and peer review groups before a final consensus was reached.

RESULTS

There is no reliable evidence to exclude patients based on age, gender or body weight. An individualised approach is advised; however, cessation of smoking is recommended. The same applies to lesser degrees of patellofemoral and lateral compartment arthritis, which may be accepted in certain situations. Good-quality limb alignment and knee radiographs are a mandatory requirement for planning of osteotomies, and Paley's angles and normal ranges are recommended when undertaking deformity analysis. Emphasis is placed upon the correct level at which correction of varus malalignment is performed, which may involve double-level osteotomy. This includes recognition of the importance of individual bone morphology and the maintenance of a physiologically appropriate joint line orientation.

CONCLUSION

The indications of knee osteotomies for painful degenerative varus knees are broad. Part I of the consensus highlights the versatility of the procedure to address multiple scenarios with bespoke planning for each case. Deformity analysis is mandatory for defining the bone morphology, the site of the deformity and planning the correct procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, consensus.

The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A European ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 1-Blood-derived products (platelet-rich plasma)

PURPOSE

The aim of this European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) consensus is to provide recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve indications, decision-making and administration-related aspects when using blood-derived orthobiologics (for simplicity indicated as PRP-platelet-rich plasma-with PRP being the most common product) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Leading European expert clinicians and scientists were divided into a steering group, a rating group and a peer review group. The steering group prepared 28 question-statement sets divided into three sections: PRP rationale and indications, PRP preparation and characterisation and PRP protocol. The quality of the statements received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientific support) to B (scientific presumption), C (low-level scientific support) or D (expert opinion). The question-statement sets were then evaluated by the rating group, and the statements scored from 1 to 9 based on their degree of agreement with the statements produced by the steering group. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the document was submitted to the peer review group who evaluated the geographic adaptability and approved the document. A final combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to produce the official document.

RESULTS

The literature review on the use of blood-derived products for knee OA revealed that 9 of 28 questions/statements had the support of high-level scientific literature, while the other 19 were supported by a medium-low scientific quality. Three of the 28 recommendations were grade A recommendations: (1) There is enough preclinical and clinical evidence to support the use of PRP in knee OA. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8). (2) Clinical evidence has shown the effectiveness of PRP in patients for mild to moderate degrees of knee OA (KL ≤ 3). This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (mean: 8.1). (3) PRP injections have been shown to provide a longer effect in comparison to the short-term effect of CS injections. They also seem to provide a safer use profile with less potential related complications. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a very strong agreement (mean: 8.7). Six statements were grade B recommendations, 7 were grade C and 12 were grade D. The mean rating score was 8.2 ± 0.3.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus group reached a high level of agreement on all the questions/statements despite the lack of clear evidence for some questions. According to the results from this consensus group, given the large body of existing literature and expert opinions, PRP was regarded as a valid treatment option for knee OA and as a possible first-line injectable treatment option for nonoperative management of knee OA, mainly for KL grades 1-3.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

A high level of scientific evidence is available to guide treatment of primary shoulder stiffness: The SIAGASCOT consensus

PURPOSE

Shoulder stiffness (SS) is a condition characterised by active and passive restricted glenohumeral range of motion, which can occur spontaneously in an idiopathic manner or be associated with a known underlying aetiology. Several treatment options are available and currently no consensus has been obtained on which treatment algorithm represents the best choice for the patient. Herein we present the results of a national consensus on the treatment of primary SS.

METHODS

The project followed the modified Delphi consensus process, involving a steering, a rating and a peer-review group. Sixteen questions were generated and subsequently answered by the steering group after a thorough literature search. A rating group composed by professionals specialised in the diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pathologies rated the question-answer sets according to the scientific evidence and their clinical experience.

RESULTS

Recommendations were rated with an average of 8.4 points out of maximum 9 points. None of the 16 answers received a rating of less than 8 and all the answers were considered as appropriate. The majority of responses were assessed as Grade A, signifying a substantial availability of scientific evidence to guide treatment and support recommendations encompassing diagnostics, physiotherapy, electrophysical agents, oral and injective medical therapies, as well as surgical interventions for primary SS.

CONCLUSIONS

A consensus regarding the conservative and surgical treatment of primary SS could be achieved at a national level. This consensus sets basis for evidence-based clinical practice in the management of primary SS and can serve as a model for similar initiatives and adaptable guidelines in other European countries and potentially on a global scale.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.