
==== Front
J Orthop Translat
J Orthop Translat
Journal of Orthopaedic Translation
2214-031X
2214-0328
Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society

S2214-031X(24)00070-6
10.1016/j.jot.2024.07.002
Original Article
Diagnosis and treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries: Consensus of Chinese experts part II: Graft selection and clinical outcome evaluation
Chen Tianwu a
Bai Xizhuang b
Bai Lunhao c
Chan Wai Sin d
Chen Shiyi cshiyi@163.com
a⁎
Chen Chen e
Chen Jiwu f
Chen Liaobin g
Dai Guofeng h
Gao Zhizeng i
Guo Yang j
Hu Yong k
Hu Ning l
Huang Huayang m
Huang Xunwu n
Huang Xuan o
Huang Jingmin p
Kang Yifan q
Lee Hung Maan r
Li Hongyun a
Li Yunxia a
Li Jin s
Li Kuanxin t
Li Yanlin u
Li Jian v
Li Qi v
Lin Ruixin w
Liu Xinwei x
Liu Ning y
Lü Wei z
Lü Hongbin aa
Ma Xiaogang ab
Mi Kun ac
Qi Zhiming ad
Sun Luning ae
Tao Jun af
Teng Xueren ag
Wang Xuesong ah
Wang Jianquan ai
Wang Kai aj
Wang Fei ak
Wang Hong al
Wang Weiming am
Wu Meng an
Xia Yayi an
Xing Gengyan ao
Xu Weidong o
Xu Youjia ap
Yin Kun aq
You Hongbo ar
Yu Jia-Kuo as
Yung Patrick at
Zhang Hui ah
Zhang Xinghuo au
Zhang Xintao av
Zhang Chunli aw
Zhang Wentao ax
Zhang Weiguo ay
Zhang Yufei ay
Zhang Keyuan az
Zhang Yadong ba
Zhang Lei bb
Zhao Qichun bc
Zheng Jiapeng bd
Zhou Jingbin be
Zhou Liwu bf
Xu Yongsheng bg
a Huashan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, China
b Liaoning Provincial People's Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
c Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
d Health Bureau of Macau Special Administrative Region Government, Macau Special Administrative Region, China
e Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai, China
f The First Affiliated Hospital of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
g Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China
h Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China
i The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
j The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian Province, China
k Sichuan Provincial Orthopedic Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
l The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
m General Hospital of the Southern Theater Command of the People's Liberation Army, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
n The Eighth Medical Center of the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
o Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China
p Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
q Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital Affiliated to Tongji University, Shanghai, China
r Hualien Tzu Chi Medical Center, Hualien City, Taiwan, China
s Ningbo Medical Center LiHuiLi Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China
t The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, Anhui Province, China
u The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, Yunnan Province, China
v West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
w Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
x General Hospital of the Northern Theater Command of the People's Liberation Army, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China
y Zhengzhou Orthopedics Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China
z Heilongjiang Provincial Hospital, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China
aa Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, Hunan Province, China
ab Tibet Autonomous Region People’s Hospital, Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region, China
ac Guangxi International Zhuang Medicine Hospital, Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China
ad Dalian Orthopedic Hospital, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China
ae Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
af The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China
ag Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China
ah Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
ai Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
aj Qinghai Provincial People’s Hospital, Xining, Qinghai Province, China
ak The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, China
al Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China
am Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Dalian University, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China
an The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, China
ao The Third Medical Center of the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
ap The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China
aq The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China
ar Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China
as Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
at Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
au Beijing Luhe Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China
av Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangzhou Province, China
aw Qionghai People’s Hospital, Qionghai, Hainan Province, China
ax The Eighth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangzhou Province, China
ay The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China
az The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China
ba The Fourth Medical Center of the General Hospital of the People's Liberation Army, Beijing, China
bb Wangjing Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
bc The First Affiliated Hospital of the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui Province, China
bd Southeast Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Zhangzhou, Fujian Province, China
be China National Institute of Sports Medicine, Beijing, China
bf General Hospital of the Eastern Theater Command of the People's Liberation Army, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
bg Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region People's Hospital, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China
⁎ Corresponding author. No. fax: 433, Huashan Road, Jingan District, Shanghai 200020, China. cshiyi@163.com
23 8 2024
9 2024
23 8 2024
48 163175
26 3 2024
10 6 2024
3 7 2024
© 2024 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Chinese Speaking Orthopaedic Society.
2024

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Background

In the recent decade, there has been substantial progress in the technologies and philosophies associated with diagnosing and treating anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in China. The therapeutic efficacy of ACL reconstruction in re-establishing the stability of the knee joint has garnered widespread acknowledgment. However, the path toward standardizing diagnostic and treatment protocols remains to be further developed and refined.

Objective

In this context, the Chinese Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (CAOS) and the Chinese Society of Sports Medicine (CSSM) collaboratively developed an expert consensus on diagnosing and treating ACL injury, aiming to enhance medical quality through refining professional standards.

Methods

The consensus drafting team invited experts across the Greater China region, including the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, to formulate and review the consensus using a modified Delphi method as a standardization approach. As members of the CSSM Lower Limb Study Group and the CAOS Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Study Group, invited experts concentrated on two pivotal issues: “Graft Selection” and “Clinical Outcome Evaluation” during the second part of the consensus development.

Results

This focused discussion ultimately led to a strong consensus on nine specific consensus terms.

Conclusion

The consensus clearly states that ACL reconstruction has no definitive “gold standard” graft choice. Autografts have advantages in healing capability but are limited in availability and have potential donor site morbidities; allografts reduce surgical trauma but incur additional costs, and there are concerns about slow healing, quality control issues, and a higher failure rate in young athletes; synthetic ligaments allow for early rehabilitation and fast return to sport, but the surgery is technically demanding and incurs additional costs. When choosing a graft, one should comprehensively consider the graft's characteristics, the doctor's technical ability, and the patient's needs. When evaluating clinical outcomes, it is essential to ensure an adequate sample size and follow-up rate, and the research should include patient subjective scoring, joint function and stability, complications, surgical failure, and the return to sport results. Medium and long-term follow-ups should not overlook the assessment of knee osteoarthritis.

Graphical abstract

Image 1

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament
Clinical outcome evaluation
Expert consensus
Graft choice
==== Body
pmcThe translational potential of this article

This study summarizes the consensus among Chinese experts on the nuances of treatment for ACL injuries, focusing specifically on graft selection and clinical efficacy evaluation, demonstrating significant multidimensional translational potential.1) Guidance for Clinical Decision-Making: By providing an in-depth evaluation of the types of grafts used for ACL reconstruction and discussing their advantages and limitations, this consensus offers scientific guidance for orthopedic sports physicians to make precise decisions based on individual patient needs, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

2) Advancement of Policies and Standardization: Summarizing the professional consensus within the Greater China region, this research lays the foundation for the formulation of related policies and the development of standardized processes for ACL injury treatment. International Sports Medicine Societies could utilize this consensus to refine guiding principles, further improving the quality and consistency of care for patients with ACL injuries.

3) Stimulation of Future Research: The identification of knowledge gaps and controversies in graft selection and effectiveness evaluation highlights the urgent need for in-depth research. Specifically, this study may generate targeted new research topics on novel grafts and the long-term effects and comprehensive evaluations, especially for using synthetic and allografts.

4) Promotion of Education and Training: The detailed analysis and expert consensus provided in this article will become a valuable resource for standardized training and education for residents, graduate students, and practicing surgeons. The collective wisdom of Chinese experts will enrich training courses, providing the next generation of sports medicine physicians with the latest knowledge on ACL reconstruction.

In summary, this expert consensus aims to refine clinical decision-making, standardize treatment processes, promote emerging research, and advance medical education, thereby providing new perspectives for personalized treatment of ACL injuries, enhancement of surgical outcomes, and increased patient satisfaction. It also paves the way for future research and the development of global treatment strategies.

1 Background

Over the past decade, sports medicine in China has made significant theoretical and practical advancements, particularly in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) diagnosis and treatment. The ACL is integral to knee stability, and its impairment sometimes necessitates reconstruction surgery to restore knee stability and lower limb function, aiding patients in resuming physical activities and enhancing their quality of life. According to Medline data, since 2010, Chinese scholars have published over 2000 papers related to ACL, surpassing the output of many Western countries. The research contributions of Chinese scholars have gained extensive recognition in the international academic community, with frequent invitations to present at global forums and a large number of publications in peer-reviewed journals. Certain studies have demonstrated unique Chinese characteristics, such as applying synthetic ligaments in ACL reconstruction, which has garnered widespread attention from international peers. However, severe challenges have also emerged with the rapid development of Chinese sports medicine. Particularly in ACL diagnosis and treatment, there is a distinct lack of clear, standardized guidelines in our country, which not only limits professional development but also presents an urgent demand for improving the quality of medical care.

Choosing an optimal graft constitutes a critical aspect of ACL reconstruction. Variations in biomechanical properties and dimensions among different grafts necessitate distinct management approaches and entail varying risks of complications, thereby significantly impacting the trajectory of postoperative rehabilitation. An appropriate graft not only enhances the success rate of the surgery and reduces the risk of complications but also establishes favorable conditions for postoperative rehabilitation. In China, grafts used for ACL reconstruction exhibit two main characteristics: universality and specificity. From the perspective of universality, autografts, due to their biocompatibility and efficacy, are extensively utilized in ACL reconstruction despite constraints such as limited source, donor site morbidity, restricted mechanical strength, and a specific rate of failure. From the viewpoint of specificity, China is confronted with unique challenges and opportunities. Commercial tissue bank resources are primarily deficient, and human tissue donation is not mandatory, with related practices still requiring widespread adoption. This situation restricts access to high-quality allogeneic tissues. Against this backdrop, the clinical application of synthetic ligaments has surged forward, becoming increasingly common and achieving initial success.

It should be noted that any controversy on graft selection may inevitably disrupt the establishment of standardized guidelines for ACL reconstruction. Such debates can lead to confusion in choices for some doctors and patients, potentially adversely affecting the anticipated outcomes and safety of the surgery. The presence of these debates does not equate to a lack of practice guidance. Suppose the professional community can converge on uniform guidance for these critical points of contention. In that case, it will provide clear direction for graft selection and enhance the quality of ACL injury treatment in China.

Clinical outcome evaluation is essential for analyzing the outcomes of ACL reconstruction and guiding graft selection. Its fundamental value lies in accurately evaluating joint stability and functional recovery and facilitating the early identification and resolution of complications such as infection and joint stiffness. Through outcome evaluation, physicians and rehabilitation therapists can more accurately track patient recovery progress and ensure targeted rehabilitation strategies are implemented. Finally, clinical outcome evaluation provides a scientific basis for decision-making when considering a patient's return to sport. Currently, Chinese overall development level of sports medicine is uneven, with significant disparities in clinical efficacy assessments of ACL reconstruction among different institutions. These disparities are primarily manifested in the non-standardization of selection criteria for assessment indicators, the lack of a unified basis for case screening and sample size calculation, and the irregularity concerning evaluation time points and follow-up periods. The lack of unified clinical efficacy evaluation standards has introduced a series of complex issues in academic research and clinical practice. Firstly, non-standardization might cause discrepancies in research interpretation, impacting academic integrity and precision. Secondly, such inconsistency can prompt physician diagnostic and treatment disagreements, potentially threatening healthcare quality. Moreover, patients receiving inconsistent information might experience confusion, leading to doubts about their future medical care.

To address several critical issues related to the diagnosis and treatment of ACL injuries, the Chinese Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (CAOS) Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Study Group and the Chinese Society of Sports Medicine (CSSM) Lower Limb Study Group have decided to initiate discussions and develop an expert consensus. The objective is to positively influence the level of practitioners by introducing detailed practice standards and guiding opinions, thereby facilitating advancements in professional practice. The consensus drafting group, adhering to the modified Delphi method as the standardized criterion, has invited experts from the Greater China region, including Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, to participate in the work. The consensus, rooted in evidence-based medicine, was reached after several rounds of discussion and thorough communication, ensuring its scientific rigor and authority. The following text reports on the second part of this consensus development: “Graft selection and clinical outcome evaluation".

2 Method

This consensus deliberates on selecting grafts for ACL reconstruction and evaluating clinical outcomes postoperatively, excluding the management of specific types of ACL injuries, such as tibial eminence fractures and partial tears. The consensus-making process can be succinctly described as one cycle, three teams, and ten phases (Fig. 1). The related work was done following the modified Delphi method [1].Figure 1 Expert Consensus Development Process Flowchart. The cycle refers to the Delphi survey (Inside the dashed box), which includes the first two rounds of online questionnaire surveys and the third round of face-to-face meeting. The three groups consist of the drafting team, the expert team, and the review team. The consensus formulation work spans ten steps from literature review to submission, all of which are the responsibility of the drafting team. The expert group and the review group each participate in their corresponding tasks.

Figure 1

2.1 Organizational structure for consensus development

The initiating organizations for this consensus are the CSSM Lower Limb Study Group and the CAOS Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Study Group. The initiating institutions include Huashan Hospital Fudan University, Peking University Third Hospital, West China Hospital Sichuan University, and the People's Hospital of Liaoning Province. The consensus initiators are Shiyi Chen, Jianquan Wang, Jian Li, and Xizhuang Bai. Shiyi Chen serves as the leader of the consensus drafting team, with members including Tianwu Chen, Jingbin Zhou, Xiaoxi Ji, and Yongtao Mao. The expert consensus team is divided into groups according to the personal preference and practical work needs of the experts under the overall arrangement of the drafting team leader, including Group A (Diagnosis and Treatment Options), Group B (Graft Selection and Clinical Outcome Evaluation), Group C (Rehabilitation and Return to Sport), and Group D (Failure and Revision Surgery). The consensus review team is led by Professor Jian Li, with Tianwu Chen serving as the liaison officer for the review and team members selected from the CSSM Lower Limb Study Group (Fig. 2).Figure 2 The organizational structure of the consensus formulation work. The second part of the consensus reported in this document was completed by Expert Group B, consisting of 30 experts responsible for conducting modified Delphi surveys on graft selection and clinical efficacy evaluation topics. CAOS: Chinese Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons; CSSM: Chinese Society of Sports Medicine.

Figure 2

2.2 Expert selection

The consensus drafting team selected consensus and review experts based on the following criteria: 1) Members of the CSSM, 2) Members of the CAOS, 3) Participants in the Chinese expert consensus on synthetic ligament applied for ACL reconstruction, 4) Active researchers in the field of ACL injury treatment, 5) Individuals who have published relevant literature in the past five years, and 6) Individuals recommended by the consensus initiators.

A total of 30 experts were fully involved in the consensus development work of Group B (Graft Selection and Clinical Outcome Evaluation). Among the experts, 28 males and two females were averaging 53.5 years. In terms of medical titles, there were 27 chief physicians and three deputy chief physicians; academically, there were 19 professors and four associate professors; in teaching positions, there were 14 Ph.D. supervisors and nine master's supervisors; and as for society positions, there were 25 members of the CSSM and 22 members of the CAOS. All experts routinely performed ACL reconstruction in the past five years, with 18 performing more than 100 surgeries annually, seven performing 51–100 surgeries, three performing 21–50 surgeries, and two performing fewer than 20 surgeries. Twenty-two had published ACL injury diagnosis and treatment-related papers in the past five years, with nine publishing more than five papers, four publishing 3–5 papers, and nine publishing 1–2 papers.

The consensus review team consisted of 37 experts, including 36 males and one female, with an average age of 54.8 years. In terms of medical titles, there were 32 chief physicians, four deputy chiefs, and one senior consultant (Hung Maan Lee); academically, there were 28 professors and six associate professors; in teaching positions, there were 19 Ph.D. supervisors and 13 master's supervisors. Regarding society positions, there were 35 members of the CSSM and 23 members of the CAOS. All experts had routinely carried out ACL reconstruction in the past five years. Annually, 26 performed more than 100 surgeries, four performed 51–100 surgeries, four performed 21–50 surgeries, and three performed fewer than 20 surgeries. Thirty-three had published ACL injury diagnosis and treatment-related papers in the past five years, with 13 publishing more than five papers, 11 publishing 3–5 papers, and nine publishing 1–2 papers.

2.3 Drafting of consensus items

The consensus drafting team formulated the proposed terms for consensus based on current medical evidence. The reference contents included English sources, Chinese sources, and the corresponding terms from the Panther consensus. English literature was searched using PubMed and the Web of Science, accessing databases such as Medline and the Web of Science collection. Chinese databases included China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and the China Science and Technology Journal Database. The search covered literature from January 1, 1900, to August 1, 2021, with the search strategy detailed in Table 1. After the search, relevant literature was screened. Exclusion criteria for literature included: 1) duplicate studies, 2) basic research, 3) studies irrelevant to the research theme, and 4) incomplete information. The specific literature screening process is detailed in Fig. 3. Relevant information for grafts used in ACL reconstruction and their evaluation was extracted based on the PICO principle (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). Content related to the efficacy evaluation of ACL reconstruction was also removed from the corresponding terms of the Panther consensus.Table 1 Search strategy of the second part of the consensus.

Table 1Search Platform/Database	Search Strategy	
Pubmed	(graft[Title/Abstract]) AND (anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction[Title/Abstract])	
Web of Science	TS = （graft）AND TS = anterior cruciate ligament	
CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)	Keywords: (graft) *Keywords:(anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction) *Date:-2021/08/01	
Wanfang Data	Title or Keywords: (graft) *Title or Keywords: (anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction)	
Database of Chinese sci-tech periodicals	Title or Keywords = graft AND Title or Keywords = anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction	

Figure 3 Prisma flowchart of the second part of the consensus.

Figure 3

3 Delphi surveys

The consensus drafting team prepared to conduct Delphi rounds, including two rounds of online surveys and a third round of face-to-face meeting (Fig. 1). The two rounds of surveys revolved around the “first draft” of the consensus. The questionnaire design was based on the Sprague method. In the first round, the consensus liaison collected expert opinions on each draft consensus item using a Likert five-point scale, with options including: “Completely Agree," “Partially Agree," “Undecided," “Partially Disagree," and " Completely Disagree”. The drafting team calculated the percentage of differing opinions and marked each item as “Accepted," “Not accepted," or “Pending” according to the corresponding standards in Table 2. For the “Not Accepted” and “Pending” terms, the consensus drafting team communicated with experts, solicited their opinions, and made corresponding modifications, which were included in the second round of the questionnaire.Table 2 Evaluation criteria of the consensus items in the first round survey.

Table 2Results	Criteria	
Accepted	⁃ The proportion of “Completely Agree"≥70%

⁃ The proportion of “Partially Agree"≥75 %

⁃ The proportions of “Completely Agree” and “Partially Agree"≥ 80 %

	
Not Accepted	⁃ The proportion of “Completely Disagree"≥10 %

⁃ The proportion of “Partially Disagree"≥15 %

⁃ The proportions of “Completely Disagree” and “Partially Disagree"≥20 %

	
Pending	⁃ Not meet any of the above results

⁃ Any logical conflicts

	

In the second round of the questionnaire survey, the consensus liaison used a three-point Likert scale to collect expert opinions on each draft consensus term, including “Agree," “Disagree," and “Uncertain and requires more clinical evidence." If a consensus term draft meets the condition of ≥90 % agreement, it is recorded as “Accepted”; if it meets the condition of >10 % disagreement or (and) uncertainty, it is recorded as “Not Accepted." For “Not Accepted” terms, the consensus drafting team again communicates with experts, solicits their opinions, and makes corresponding modifications, incorporating the feedback into the second draft for discussion in the face-to-face meeting.

Due to pandemic prevention and control measures, the face-to-face meeting was conducted “online and offline”. A total of 30 experts participated in the meeting, with 20 online and ten offline. Professor Jianquan Wang, the consensus initiator, served as the online moderator, and Professor Chen Shiyi served as the offline moderator. A teller (Tianwu Chen) and two vote counters (Xiaoxi Ji and Yongtao Mao) were present on-site. After the teller introduced the consensus items, the moderator solicited amendment suggestions with real-time modifications from the experts. Amendments approved by more than half of the experts were considered valid. All experts voted on the consensus terms by raising their hands, with options to vote in favor, abstain, or oppose; repeated voting was considered invalid, and presence without voting was considered abstention. A consensus was considered reached for a draft term with an approval rate of 85%, and based on the approval rate, consensus terms were categorized into three levels: “Strong” (95.0%–100%), “General” (90.0%–94.9%), and “Basic” (85.0%–89.9%).

3.1 Data analysis

The first round survey included nine terms: nine accepted, 0 not accepted, and 0 pending. All nine terms directly progressed to the second draft. During the face-to-face meeting, 30 experts discussed and voted on the nine proposed consensus terms. One item was amended, while 8 received no suggestions for modifications. All nine terms were unanimously approved, achieving strong consensus (Fig. 4).Figure 4 The Stages of Consensus Drafting: From First Draft to Final Version through the Modified Delphi Rounds. During the first round of surveys, all nine items of the first draft were accepted, negating the need for a second round of surveys. These were directly incorporated into the second draft for the face-to-face meeting. In the meeting, there were no item that failed to achieve consensus; all nine items were accepted, resulting in strong consensus.

Figure 4

4 Interpretation of consensus terms

Item 1 Currently, grafts used for ACL reconstruction can be categorized into three main types: autografts, allografts, and synthetic ligaments. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

The choice of graft plays a crucial role in preoperative planning for ACL reconstruction, as it has a decisive impact on surgical outcomes [2]. A century ago, surgeons began experimenting with autologous iliotibial bands as grafts for reconstructing the damaged ACL [3]. Subsequently, researchers found that portions of the patellar tendon (with bone blocks) [4], semitendinosus and gracilis tendons [5], portions of the quadriceps tendon [6], and the long peroneal tendon [7] could also serve as grafts for ACL reconstruction. These tissues, harvested from other parts of the patient's body, are known as autografts and are currently the most widely used for ACL reconstruction worldwide. Allografts, derived from donated natural human tissues from donors, include not only commonly used autograft sites but also structures such as the anterior tibialis, posterior tibialis, and Achilles tendons, which are not ideally obtained by sacrificing one's own tissues [8]. Allografts, sourced from tissue banks, are extensively used for ACL reconstruction in most countries and regions, particularly in North America. Synthetic ligaments are grafts made from artificial materials for ligament repair and reconstruction. Early use of synthetic ligaments for ACL reconstruction was unsuccessful due to material and design flaws, inappropriate indications, and surgical errors. With advancements in weaving materials, structural design, indication selection, and surgical techniques, the latest generation of synthetic ligaments is now utilized for ACL reconstruction in North America, Europe, Australia, the Middle East, and China.Item 2 Different types of grafts each have their advantages and limitations, and currently, there is no “gold standard” for graft selection. Surgeons should consider factors such as graft size, biomechanical properties, tissue source, surgical habits and technical proficiency, and the patient's gender, age, injury characteristics, athletic requirements, and personal preferences when choosing a graft. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

Graft selection is a classical topic in ACL reconstruction. Ideal graft requirements include rapid integration, allowance for early rehabilitation, low failure rate, high safety, adequate strength, satisfactory size, low donor site complications, widespread availability, and reasonable cost [[8], [9], [10]]. Unfortunately, existing grafts each have advantages and shortcomings and cannot meet all the above criteria [11]. Hence, current ACL reconstruction has no “gold standard” for graft selection. When considering graft choices, surgeons must balance various factors to make the optimal decision.

Studies have shown that increasing the cross-sectional area of the graft can effectively improve its mechanical strength. However, an extensive cross-sectional area may potentially cause graft impingement within the intercondylar notch, so balancing the size and mechanical strength of the graft can not be overlooked [[12], [13], [14]]. The sterilization treatment of allografts significantly affects their mechanical strength and clinical efficacy; therefore, surgeons and patients should be well informed of the advantages and disadvantages of different sterilization methods to select the most appropriate graft [[15], [16], [17]]. The surgical habits of the physician essentially affects graft choice, as different graft types involve different surgical techniques, and the surgeon's experience and technical proficiency are crucial in graft selection [12,[18], [19], [20]]. Some physicians may have accumulated extensive experience with certain types of grafts, thus being more skilled and confident during surgery. Moreover, some grafts may require more delicate and complex surgical techniques, but mastering these techniques necessitates systematic training and long-term practice. Therefore, surgeons should choose the appropriate graft according to their surgical habits and technical proficiency to improve surgical success rates and reduce the risk of complications.

The patient's gender, age, and athletic needs affect the surgical success rate, the rehabilitation process, and the timing of return to sport of ACL reconstruction [21]. Young males and active individuals may require grafts with higher mechanical strength and lower rerupture rates to meet their athletic demands [22]. Considering injury characteristics is essential in graft selection, for instance, preserving medial stability structures (e.g., semitendinosus tendon) when there is concomitant medial collateral ligament injury [23,24] or emphasizing the function of the extensor apparatus when there is a posterior cruciate injury combined [25,26]. Additionally, to ensure patients' right to informed consent, physicians should fulfill their notification duty by explaining the advantages and disadvantages of different grafts and respecting the patient's personal preferences in the final decision.Item 3 The semitendinosus tendon, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), quadriceps tendon, and peroneus longus tendon are the autografts currently used for ACL reconstruction. The advantage of using BPTB is that the bone blocks at both ends preserve the natural tendon–osseous interface, allowing for more robust integration of the graft with the host through osseous healing. The semitendinosus tendon is favored for its ideal mechanical strength and not damaging the extensor mechanism. The clinical efficacy of the quadriceps tendon and peroneus longus tendon needs further confirmation from evidence-based medicine. All autografts have limitations, such as limited availability and potential donor site complications. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

The autologous BPTB and semitendinosus tendon are the most commonly used grafts for ACL reconstruction globally [[27], [28], [29], [30]]. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies have shown that ACL reconstructions using BPTB and semitendinosus tendon have satisfactory clinical efficacy at various postoperative stages [[31], [32], [33]]. In 1963, Jones KG firstly proposed using autologous BPTB for ACL reconstruction [4], a technique later refined by Erikson E and popularized in the 1970s [34]. The graft is taken from 1/3 of the patellar tendon, including bone blocks from the patella and tibia, with the advantage of preserving the natural tendon–osseous interface and more robust integration through osseous healing. However, drawbacks include damage to the extensor mechanism and donor site complications, including patellar fractures, patellar tendon rupture, and kneeling pain [35,36]. Between 1920 and 1970, several scholars reported using a single-strand autologous semitendinosus tendon for ACL reconstruction [3,37]. In 1982, Lipscomb AB first used semitendinosus and gracilis tendons as double-strand grafts for ACL reconstruction, achieving satisfactory short-term outcomes [38]. In 1988, Friedman MJ detailed the method of using four-strand semitendinosus and gracilis tendons for ACL reconstruction [39]. Since then, four-strand semitendinosus tendon reconstruction has been accepted. The advantage of using semitendinosus tendon lies in not damaging the extensor mechanism and achieving ideal mechanical strength after multi-strand weaving [40], with the average failure load of a four-strand semitendinosus tendon reaching 4090N, higher than that of BPTB, ranging from 2238N (7 mm width) to 2664N (10 mm width) [41,42]. However, potential issues like unpredictable size, saphenous nerve injury, intermuscular hematoma, and weakened knee flexion are challenges when using autologous semitendinosus tendon [[43], [44], [45]]. Since 1979, several scholars have reported using autologous quadriceps tendon for ACL reconstruction [6,46,47]. Clinical proponents believe the autologous quadriceps tendon has ideal mechanical strength and advantages over autologous BPTB and semitendinosus tendons regarding donor site complications and graft size, making it an ideal alternative choice [48,49]. However, the clinical use of the quadriceps tendon has long remained low, accounting for only 1–2.5 % of grafts used in ACL reconstruction, thus earning the moniker of the ‘forgotten’ graft [50,51]. In recent years, the use of quadriceps tendon as an ACL graft has been on the rise, with meta-analyses showing its failure rate is comparable to autologous BPTB and semitendinosus tendon, and it has advantages in donor site complication rates and functional scores. However, overall, the clinical efficacy of using autologous quadriceps tendon for ACL reconstruction still awaits further follow-up studies and randomized controlled trials for confirmation [52,53]. The autologous peroneus longus tendon has recently been reported for use in ACL reconstruction [54,55]. Clinical supporters consider the autologous peroneus longus tendon to have ideal size and rupture strength comparable to semitendinosus tendon, quadriceps tendon, and BPTB while not damaging the medial stability structures (semitendinosus tendon) [56,57]. However, there are dissenting opinions [58]. Recent meta-analyses indicate that routine clinical use of autologous peroneus longus tendon in ACL reconstruction lacks sufficient evidence, and its ankle donor site complications and long-term efficacy still require further research for confirmation [10,59].Item 4 The tibial tendon, Achilles tendon, BPTB, and semitendinosus tendon currently serve as commonly utilized allografts for ACL reconstruction. The advantages of employing allografts include absence of donor site morbidity, reduced surgical trauma, diminished pain associated with tissue harvesting, and shorter operative time. However, the limitations related to the use of allografts encompass the incurrence of additional costs, comparatively slower graft healing, potential for immunogenic rejection, risks of disease transmission, concerns regarding the quality of donor tissues, and a relatively higher graft failure rate within populations of young athletes. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

Since the 1980s, allografts have been utilized in ACL reconstruction [60]. In the 1990s, with the proliferation of commercial tissue banks in the United States, the use of allografts for ACL reconstruction significantly increased [61]. Recently, European scholars have reached a consensus regarding using allografts in ACL reconstruction [62]. To date, research publications from the United States account for 50% of the related studies indexed in the Medline database, with Chinese researchers contributing 15.2% of the publications, ranking second. Regarding tissue sources, the tibial tendon, Achilles tendon, BPTB, and semitendinosus tendon are commonly selected options [12,63,64]. The advantages of using allografts include eliminating the need to harvest autologous tissue, shortening surgery time, reducing trauma, avoiding donor site complications, and quicker postoperative recovery [64,65]. Additionally, allografts, due to their ample availability, are often used in ACL reconstruction involving multiple ligament injuries and revision surgeries [66,67].

However, the drawbacks of using allograft tendons for ACL reconstruction primarily include the quality control and sterilization processes of donated tissues, increased medical costs [68,69],the longer ligamentization process (compared to autografts) [70], the risks of tissue rejection and pathogen transmission [71], the impact of age-related tissue quality on graft strength [72], and the higher failure rates in young athletes [73,74]. It is noteworthy that gamma irradiation treatment can lead to a decrease in the mechanical strength of the grafts [75]. Conversely, ACL reconstruction with allografts treated without irradiation have demonstrated better postoperative joint stability [[76], [77], [78]].Item 5 Currently, Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) is the principal synthetic ligament option for ACL reconstruction in China. The advantage of the LARS lies in its high mechanical strength. After implantation, the LARS does not involve tissue regeneration-based ligamentization, promptly attaining an ideal mechanical strength, enabling patients to undergo fast postoperative recovery and early return to sport. Furthermore, the application avoids donor site complications and mitigates the potential risk of disease transmission. However, applying synthetic ligaments in ACL reconstruction requires exact graft positioning, either “isometric” or “near-isometric”. Misalignment of the bone tunnels can easily lead to surgical failure. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

Due to significant changes in overall structure, weaving technique, and surgical approach compared to earlier synthetic ligaments, the LARS is a new generation of synthetic ligaments [79,80]. Over the past 20 years, the LARS has been widely used worldwide, with China being the largest user in ACL reconstruction. Unlike biological grafts, the LARS is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers and does not undergo the tissue regeneration process of “necrosis-vascularization-restructuring” [81]. It immediately possesses strong tensile strength postoperatively. The LARS offers a maximum mechanical strength (rupture load) of up to 5500N (LARS AC120), which is 3.2 times that of the native ACL (adult male, 1730N), 2.1 times that of the BPTB (width 10 mm, 2664N), 2.3 times that of the quadriceps tendon (width 10 mm, 2352N), and 1.3 times that of the quadruple hamstring tendon (4090N) [12,41,42,82,83]. Therefore, ACL reconstruction using the LARS allows for fast postoperative recovery and early return to sport.

Additionally, applying synthetic ligaments eliminates the need to sacrifice autologous tissues and avoids donor site complications. Simultaneously, it eliminates the potential risk of pathogen transmission related to allografts [84,85]. However, it should be noted that due to its poor elasticity, the clinical efficacy of LARS in ACL reconstruction highly depends on “isometric” or “near-isometric” techniques, demanding accurate bone tunnel positioning [86]. Misalignment of bone tunnels can bring the graft to a non-isometric state during joint flexion and extension, directly limiting the knee range of motion (ROM) and subjecting the graft to excessive loads as well as potential impingement within the intercondylar notch. Evidence suggests that misalignment of bone tunnels is the primary cause of failure in LARS ACL reconstruction [87]. Other disadvantages of using the LARS include higher costs, potential long-term durability concerns, and the lack of biological integration, which may affect long-term clinical outcomes.Item 6 A comprehensive evaluation of ACL reconstruction should encompass surgical details, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), knee joint functional scores, types and levels of physical activities, postoperative complications, and reconstruction failures. Medium to long-term follow-up should focus on the occurrence of postoperative osteoarthritis. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

A systematic evaluation following ACL reconstruction should include subjective scoring, clinical assessment, and return to sport status. The PROs from questionnaire surveys provide rich information on joint symptoms, function, daily activities, and knee-related quality of life and quantitatively assess postoperative physical activity, including intensity, frequency, and psychological status related to return to sport. Clinical assessment, performed by healthcare professionals, encompasses surgical details and knee joint function. Surgical details include graft selection, fixation methods, bone tunnel positioning, and management of concomitant injuries. Joint function assessment should consist of at least the joint ROM and stability. We recommend using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) standards for measurement, with results compared to the contralateral knee and graded rigorously to obtain standardized reports [88]. The contralateral knee can be a reference for surgical-side assessment, highlighting individual differences in joint ROM, stability, and functional performance (e.g., isokinetic muscle testing, single-leg hop). Some quantitative measurements, such as anterior translation, may be challenging for patients with bilateral ACL injuries. Researchers may use qualitative methods (e.g., the presence of “hard endpoint”) to make judgments. Return to sport is a significant goal for most patients undergoing ACL reconstruction; thus, recording their physical activity level is necessary [89]. The current internationally accepted practice is to evaluate the proportion and timing of return to sport at two years postoperatively [90].

ACL reconstruction failure is a nonspecific term with disputed definitions in the literature [91,92]. We recommend categorizing clinical failure and graft rupture as part of the reconstruction failure [73]. Clinical failure indicates abnormalities in joint function, including restricted joint ROM and recurrent laxity, typically confirmed by clinical examination. Graft rupture requires confirmation through MRI or arthroscopic inspection [87]. Reasons for reconstruction failure may include: 1) traumatic factors, such as re-injury, 2) technical factors, such as surgical errors, and 3) patient-related factors, including poor rehabilitation compliance, abnormal neuromuscular function, or generalized ligament laxity [[93], [94], [95]]. Specific details, reasons, and timing of failure should be documented for failed cases. Postoperative complications of ACL reconstruction include joint infection, synovitis, joint stiffness, deep vein thrombosis, and other issues. Severe complications can affect surgical outcomes or even lead to reconstruction failure. Early-stage (within six months) monitoring and documentation of complications are essential [[96], [97], [98]].Item 7 PROs following ACL reconstruction should include at least one knee joint score, one activity score, and one health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

In clinical assessment, using PROs is crucial for physicians and researchers to understand patients' responses to ACL injuries and treatments [[99], [100], [101]]. In recent years, advancements in internet technology and the widespread availability of smartphones and computers have facilitated the electronic completion of questionnaires between healthcare providers and patients, thereby promoting the PROs usage [102,103]. The efficient survey methods have led researchers to add more questionnaires to patients to gather additional data on PROs. However, it's important to note that respondent burden is a significant term in research, defined as “the time required to complete items and the physical and cognitive demands placed on respondents” [104,105]. All clinical tests conducted on patients contribute to the burden they bear. Therefore, in assessing clinical outcomes, a delicate balance exists between various outcome assessments and respondent burden. Excessive respondent burden threatens the effectiveness of individual responses, thereby impacting the validity of the feedback provided. We recommend that researchers selectively choose patient questionnaires tailored to the study objectives, aiming to minimize respondent burden while obtaining the necessary PROs for their researches. From published high-quality clinical studies, it is evident that incorporating a knee-specific score, a HRQoL score, and an activity score enables researchers to comprehensively understand patients' perspectives on treatment outcomes [73,85,[106], [107], [108]].Item 8 The knee stability of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction includes both anterior and rotational stability. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

The ACL is crucial in limiting anterior translation and excessive rotation of tibia [109]. ACL reconstruction aims to reconstruct the ligament structure and restore anterior and rotational stability of the knee [110]. Accurate assessment of joint stability is crucial for evaluating the effectiveness of reconstruction surgery. According to the IKDC criteria, laxity levels graded as A and B are recorded as “normal” and “nearly normal” respectively [111], while C or D grades are considered as clinical failure [73]. It should be noted that “joint laxity” and “joint instability” are distinct concepts. Knee joint laxity refers to the passive state of the knee joint when external forces or torques are applied, representing an objective phenomenon; joint instability refers to the patient's perception of symptoms during functional movements, meaning a subjective response [112]. While there is a connection between the two, it is not necessarily deterministic. Due to its objective measurability and accurate recordability, laxity level is the preferred indicator for clinical assessment of joint stability.

Anterior laxity of the knee joint in ACL-injured knees is primarily determined by the degree of anterior tibial translation. For instance, in the Lachman and anterior drawer tests, the examiner applies anterior load directly to the tibia in a single plane and assesses the degree of anterior tibial translation [113,114]. The IKDC Knee Ligament Standard Evaluation Form details standardized classifications of anterior tibial translation, including requirements for comparison with the contralateral side [111]. In terms of quantifying laxity levels, tools like the KT-1000/2000 are widely used in clinical practice, although concerns about inter-examiner reliability have been reported [[115], [116], [117]]. Recently, robotic devices have been employed for assessing joint laxity, possessing automatic detection capabilities, and mitigating inter-examiner variability [115,118,119].

It should be noted that the Lachman test and anterior drawer test only measure anterior tibial translation. It can not capture complex joint kinematics, and the degree of anterior laxity may not necessarily correlate with the joint function after ACL reconstruction [120]. In comparison, the pivot-shift test is a classic dynamic laxity test that can simulate physiological loads on the knee joint and detect both anterior and rotational laxity [121], with evidence suggesting it is the most specific physical examination maneuver for ACL injury [122].Item 9 The reliability of clinical outcome evaluation for ACL reconstruction requires sample size calculation, completion of pre-treatment status assessment, clarification of the shortest follow-up time, and achievement of a follow-up rate of over 80%. (Strong consensus, 100% approval rate, 30/30)

Effective sample size calculation is a prerequisite for high-quality research [123]. When the sample size is insufficient, the evaluation results may be affected by “Type II errors”, resulting in “false-negative” outcomes [124]. For example, in a study comparing the clinical efficacy of grafts A and B, even if graft A demonstrates a significant advantage over graft B in the timing of return to sport, a study with inadequate sample size may fail to detect the difference in outcomes. Therefore, it is evident that calculating the sample size is crucial for ensuring the credibility of research conclusions. Additionally, from the perspective of reducing resource wastage, avoiding adverse events, and minimizing patient burden, researchers must determine the effective sample size before initiating a project [125,126].

Substantial evidence suggests that certain baseline variables, such as demographic data and pre-injury activity level, have specific impacts on the efficacy of ACL reconstruction. Recording these baseline data facilitates study design and creates conditions for in-depth analysis, thus avoiding bias in analyzing results [127,128]. Collecting PROs before treatment is essential as a fundamental aspect of assessing surgical efficacy, which should include joint symptoms, function, and related quality of life. It should be noted that evaluating the HRQoL and patient psychological status is crucial, as they reflect the impact of ACL injury on physical, social, and emotional health [129,130]. Currently validated PROs tools include the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life (ACL-QoL) questionnaire, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) questionnaire [[131], [132], [133]]. Additionally, preoperative objective joint examination results should be accurately recorded, including joint stability, ROM, swelling, muscle atrophy, and other relevant factors. Finally, researchers should also document the type and level of physical activity before the injury, which is crucial for determining whether patients have successfully returned to their pre-injury activity level. Validated assessment tools include the Marx Activity Scale, Tegner Activity Scale, and Cincinnati Sports Activity Scale [[134], [135], [136]]. In summary, completing a pre-treatment status assessment should include at least demographic data, PROs, objective joint examination, and pre-injury activity type and level.

In clinical research surrounding ACL reconstruction, the follow-up duration should be determined based on the study's primary outcomes. Generally, treatment outcomes after ACL injury encompass the following: 1) PROs, 2) objective knee examination results, 3) early adverse events, 4) surgical failures, such as graft rupture and recurrent joint laxity, and 5) return to sport outcomes, including the timing and level of activities [[137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]]. Previous reports have shown significant variations in follow-up durations for different outcomes. For early adverse events such as infection, joint stiffness, and loosening of fixation, a follow-up period of six months is sufficient to collect data reflecting these outcomes [143,144]. PROs and objective joint examinations tend to stabilize 1 to 2 years post-surgery [145,146]. Suppose researchers are investigating surgical failures or return to sport, the follow-up period should not be less than two years, as ACL re-rupture and revision surgery rates peak within 1 to 2 years after reconstruction, corresponding to when most patients return to sport [[147], [148], [149]]. For studies focusing on the onset and progression of postoperative osteoarthritis following ACL reconstruction, a minimum follow-up of five years is recommended to observe changes in imaging and symptoms [[150], [151], [152]]. In clinical research, some degree of patient loss to follow-up is inevitable as the follow-up duration extends. Researchers should be aware that even a small proportion of loss to follow-up can lead to significant research bias [153]. The current consensus is that a loss to follow-up rate exceeding 20% threatens the credibility of study results [154]. Therefore, it is advised that a study should aim for a follow-up rate of at least 80% and discuss the impact of loss based on statistical analysis. In summary, the follow-up duration after ACL reconstruction should be decided based on the research objectives and primary outcomes while striving to ensure a follow-up rate of over 80%.

5 Conclusion

There is no “gold standard” for graft selection in ACL reconstruction; the options available include autografts, allografts, and synthetic ligaments. Each type of graft presents its advantages and disadvantages in clinical use. Autografts are favored for their safety and convenience as autologous tissue, though they are limited by availability and potential donor site morbidities. Allografts offer the advantages of a relatively abundant source, reduced surgical trauma, and postoperative pain. However, they come with additional costs, slower healing, risk of rejection, potential for disease transmission, and a higher failure rate in young, active populations. Synthetic ligaments are advantageous due to their superior mechanical strength, fast recovery, and early return to sport. However, they also incur additional costs and demand high surgical precision in tunnel placement. Factors to consider when selecting a graft include the graft size, biomechanical properties, tissue source, the surgeon's preference, technical proficiency, and the patient's gender, age, injury characteristics, athletic demands, and personal preference. Systematic evaluations after ACL reconstruction encompass not only surgical details and PROs but also delve into joint function and stability, as well as complications and surgical failures. To ensure treatment efficacy, mid- to long-term follow-ups should focus on the occurrence of osteoarthritis. Researchers need to employ multiple scoring standards while providing an adequate sample size and a follow-up rate of at least 80% to guarantee the accuracy of clinical outcome evaluation.

Financial conflicts of interest

We declared no financial conflicts of interest for each author, including investments, employment, consultancies, honoraria, patents, and royalties.

Personal relationships

All authors declared no personal relationships that could potentially influence the research.

Professional affiliations

All authors declared no affiliations with organizations directly interested in the subject matter. This includes memberships, employment, and consultancies.

Funding sources

This work was supported by the 10.13039/501100012166 National Key R＆D Program of China (2021YFA1201303 ) and the 10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 82172511 ).

Declaration of competing interest

We, the undersigned, declare that for the manuscript entitled Diagnosis and Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: Consensus of Chinese Experts Part II: Graft Selection and Clinical Outcome Evaluation, the following is a true and accurate statement of all our potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that might influence the work or its interpretation.

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to the 10.13039/100011155 CAOS Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Study Group and the CSSM Lower Limb Study Group for their invaluable assistance and steadfast support in the consensus development process. Despite the complex situation posed by the pandemic, their collaboration enabled the core component of our work, the face-to-face meeting, to proceed smoothly through a hybrid model of online and offline modes.
==== Refs
References

1 Hsu C.C. Sandford B.A. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus Practical Assess Res Eval 12 10 2007 1 8
2 Sim K. Rahardja R. Zhu M. Young S.W. Optimal graft choice in athletic patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries: review and clinical insights Open Access J Sports Med 13 2022 55 67 35800660
3 Schindler O.S. The story of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction--Part 1 J Perioperat Pract 22 5 2012 163 171
4 Jones K.G. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A technique using the central one-third of the patellar ligament J Bone Joint Surg Am 45 1963 925 932 14047364
5 Cho K.O. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament by semitendinosus tenodesis J Bone Joint Surg Am 57 5 1975 608 612 1150699
6 Fulkerson J.P. Langeland R. An alternative cruciate reconstruction graft: the central quadriceps tendon Arthroscopy 11 2 1995 252 254 7794444
7 Kerimoglu S. Kosucu P. Livaoglu M. Yukunc I. Turhan A.U. Magnetic resonance imagination of the peroneus longus tendon after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17 1 2009 35 39 18818901
8 Jost P.W. Dy C.J. Robertson C.M. Kelly A.M. Allograft use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction HSS J 7 3 2011 251 256 23024622
9 Geib T.M. Shelton W.R. Phelps R.A. Clark L. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadriceps tendon autograft: intermediate-term outcome Arthroscopy 25 12 2009 1408 1414 19962067
10 Marin Fermin T. Hovsepian J.M. Symeonidis P.D. Terzidis I. Papakostas E.T. Insufficient evidence to support peroneus longus tendon over other autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review J ISAKOS 6 3 2021 161 169 34006580
11 Sherman O.H. Banffy M.B. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft is best? Arthroscopy 20 9 2004 974 980 15525931
12 West R.V. Harner C.D. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13 3 2005 197 207 15938608
13 Orsi A.D. Canavan P.K. Vaziri A. Goebel R. Kapasi O.A. Nayeb-Hashemi H. The effects of graft size and insertion site location during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on intercondylar notch impingement Knee 24 3 2017 525 535 28342722
14 Howell S.M. Principles for placing the tibial tunnel and avoiding roof impingement during reconstruction of a torn anterior cruciate ligament Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 6 1998 S49 S55 9608464
15 Lawhorn K.W. Howell S.M. Traina S.M. Gottlieb J.E. Meade T.D. Freedberg H.I. The effect of graft tissue on anterior cruciate ligament outcomes: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing autograft hamstrings with fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft Arthroscopy 28 8 2012 1079 1086 22840988
16 Mariscalco M.W. Magnussen R.A. Mehta D. Hewett T.E. Flanigan D.C. Kaeding C.C. Autograft versus nonirradiated allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review Am J Sports Med 42 2 2014 492 499 23928319
17 Carey J.L. Dunn W.R. Dahm D.L. Zeger S.L. Spindler K.P. A systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft compared with allograft J Bone Joint Surg Am 91 9 2009 2242 2250 19724004
18 Bowman E.N. Freeman T.H. Limpisvasti O. Cole B.J. ElAttrache N.S. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction femoral tunnel drilling preference among orthopaedic surgeons Knee 29 2021 564 570 33774590
19 Wolf B.R. Ramme A.J. Britton C.L. Amendola A. Group M.K. Anterior cruciate ligament tunnel placement J Knee Surg 27 4 2014 309 317 24414390
20 Inacio M.C. Paxton E.W. Maletis G.B. Csintalan R.P. Granan L.P. Fithian D.C. Patient and surgeon characteristics associated with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft selection Am J Sports Med 40 2 2012 339 345 21976146
21 Kaeding C.C. Aros B. Pedroza A. Pifel E. Amendola A. Andrish J.T. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: predictors of failure from a MOON prospective longitudinal cohort Sport Health 3 1 2011 73 81
22 Prodromos C. Joyce B. Shi K. A meta-analysis of stability of autografts compared to allografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15 7 2007 851 856 17437083
23 Kremen T.J. Polakof L.S. Rajaee S.S. Nelson T.J. Metzger M.F. The effect of hamstring tendon autograft harvest on the restoration of knee stability in the setting of concurrent anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament injuries Am J Sports Med 46 1 2018 163 170 29048929
24 Herbort M. Michel P. Raschke M.J. Vogel N. Schulze M. Zoll A. Should the ipsilateral hamstrings Be used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the case of medial collateral ligament insufficiency? Biomechanical investigation regarding dynamic stabilization of the medial compartment by the hamstring muscles Am J Sports Med 45 4 2017 819 825 28029798
25 Adams D.J. Mazzocca A.D. Fulkerson J.P. Residual strength of the quadriceps versus patellar tendon after harvesting a central free tendon graft Arthroscopy 22 1 2006 76 79 16399465
26 Rosenberg T.D. Franklin J.L. Baldwin G.N. Nelson K.A. Extensor mechanism function after patellar tendon graft harvest for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am J Sports Med 20 5 1992 519 526 1443318
27 Eriksson K. Anderberg P. Hamberg P. Lofgren A.C. Bredenberg M. Westman I. A comparison of quadruple semitendinosus and patellar tendon grafts in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament J Bone Joint Surg Br 83 3 2001 348 354 11341418
28 Freedman K.B. D'Amato M.J. Nedeff D.D. Kaz A. Bach B.R. Jr. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts Am J Sports Med 31 1 2003 2 11 12531750
29 Bergeron J.J. Sercia Q.P. Drager J. Pelet S. Belzile E.L. Return to baseline physical activity after bone-patellar tendon-bone versus hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Am J Sports Med 50 8 2022 2292 2303 34310176
30 Kvist J. Kartus J. Karlsson J. Forssblad M. Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register Arthroscopy 30 7 2014 803 810 24746404
31 Dai C. Wang F. Wang X. Wang R. Wang S. Tang S. Arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with six-strand hamstring tendon allograft versus bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24 9 2016 2915 2922 25763849
32 Webster K.E. Feller J.A. Hartnett N. Leigh W.B. Richmond A.K. Comparison of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 15-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial Am J Sports Med 44 1 2016 83 90 26578718
33 Sajovic M. Stropnik D. Skaza K. Long-term comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 17-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial Am J Sports Med 46 8 2018 1800 1808 29741911
34 Eriksson E. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament Orthop Clin N Am 7 1 1976 167 179
35 Sachs R.A. Daniel D.M. Stone M.L. Garfein R.F. Patellofemoral problems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am J Sports Med 17 6 1989 760 765 2624287
36 Marder R.A. Raskind J.R. Carroll M. Prospective evaluation of arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Patellar tendon versus semitendinosus and gracilis tendons Am J Sports Med 19 5 1991 478 484 1962713
37 Chambat P. Guier C. Sonnery-Cottet B. Fayard J.M. Thaunat M. The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty years Int Orthop 37 2 2013 181 186 23322063
38 Lipscomb A.B. Johnston R.K. Snyder R.B. Warburton M.J. Gilbert P.P. Evaluation of hamstring strength following use of semitendinosus and gracilis tendons to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament Am J Sports Med 10 6 1982 340 342 7180953
39 Friedman M.J. Arthroscopic semitendinosus (gracilis) reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament deficiency Tech Orthop 2 4 1988 74 80
40 Thaunat M. Fayard J.M. Sonnery-Cottet B. Hamstring tendons or bone-patellar tendon-bone graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105 1S 2019 S89 S94 30130660
41 Hamner D.L. Brown C.H. Jr. Steiner M.E. Hecker A.T. Hayes W.C. Hamstring tendon grafts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: biomechanical evaluation of the use of multiple strands and tensioning techniques J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 4 1999 549 557 10225801
42 Cooper D.E. Deng X.H. Burstein A.L. Warren R.F. The strength of the central third patellar tendon graft. A biomechanical study Am J Sports Med 21 6 1993 818 824 8291632
43 Soon M. Neo C.P. Mitra A.K. Tay B.K. Morbidity following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft Ann Acad Med Singapore 33 2 2004 214 219 15098637
44 Sanders B. Rolf R. McClelland W. Xerogeanes J. Prevalence of saphenous nerve injury after autogenous hamstring harvest: an anatomic and clinical study of sartorial branch injury Arthroscopy 23 9 2007 956 963 17868834
45 San Jose A.T. Maniar N. Timmins R.G. Beerworth K. Hampel C. Tyson N. Explosive hamstrings strength asymmetry persists despite maximal hamstring strength recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon autografts Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31 1 2023 299 307 35999280
46 Marshall J.L. Warren R.F. Wickiewicz T.L. Reider B. The anterior cruciate ligament: a technique of repair and reconstruction Clin Orthop Relat Res 143 1979 97 106
47 Stäubli H.-U. Arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction using autologous quadriceps tendon The knee and the cruciate ligaments: anatomy biomechanics clinical aspects reconstruction complications rehabilitation 1990 Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin, Heidelberg 443 451
48 Slone H.S. Romine S.E. Premkumar A. Xerogeanes J.W. Quadriceps tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comprehensive review of current literature and systematic review of clinical results Arthroscopy 31 3 2015 541 554 25543249
49 Staubli H.U. Schatzmann L. Brunner P. Rincon L. Nolte L.P. Mechanical tensile properties of the quadriceps tendon and patellar ligament in young adults Am J Sports Med 27 1 1999 27 34 9934415
50 van Eck C.F. Illingworth K.D. Fu F.H. Quadriceps tendon: the forgotten graft Arthroscopy 26 4 2010 441 443 20362820
51 van Eck C.F. Schreiber V.M. Mejia H.A. Samuelsson K. van Dijk C.N. Karlsson J. "Anatomic" anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of surgical techniques and reporting of surgical data Arthroscopy 26 9S 2010 S2 S12 20810090
52 Hurley E.T. Calvo-Gurry M. Withers D. Farrington S.K. Moran R. Moran C.J. Quadriceps tendon autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review Arthroscopy 34 5 2018 1690 1698 29628380
53 Mouarbes D. Menetrey J. Marot V. Courtot L. Berard E. Cavaignac E. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for quadriceps tendon autograft versus bone-patellar tendon-bone and hamstring-tendon autografts Am J Sports Med 47 14 2019 3531 3540 30790526
54 Joshi S. Shetty U.C. Salim M.D. Meena N. Kumar R.S. Rao V.K.V. Peroneus longus tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a safe and effective alternative in nonathletic patients Niger J Surg 27 1 2021 42 47 34012241
55 Shi F.D. Hess D.E. Zuo J.Z. Liu S.J. Wang X.C. Zhang Y. Peroneus longus tendon autograft is a safe and effective alternative for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction J Knee Surg 32 8 2019 804 811 30206913
56 Phatama K.Y. Hidayat M. Mustamsir E. Pradana A.S. Dhananjaya B. Muhammad S.I. Tensile strength comparison between hamstring tendon, patellar tendon, quadriceps tendon and peroneus longus tendon: a cadaver research Journal of Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery 6 2 2019 114 116
57 Zhao J. Huangfu X. The biomechanical and clinical application of using the anterior half of the peroneus longus tendon as an autograft source Am J Sports Med 40 3 2012 662 671 22174343
58 Angthong C. Chernchujit B. Apivatgaroon A. Chaijenkit K. Nualon P. Suchao-in K. The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon: a biomechanical and clinical evaluation of the donor ankle morbidity J Med Assoc Thai 98 6 2015 555 560 26219159
59 Yadav U. Nemani M. Devgun A. Malik M. Agrawal G.K. Iatrogenic foot drop after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon autograft: report of a rare case Cureus 14 6 2022 e26476
60 Zoltan D.J. Reinecke C. Indelicato P.A. Synthetic and allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Clin Sports Med 7 4 1988 773 784 3052882
61 Cohen S.B. Sekiya J.K. Allograft safety in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Clin Sports Med 26 4 2007 597 605 17920955
62 Bait C. Randelli P. Compagnoni R. Ferrua P. Papalia R. Familiari F. Italian consensus statement for the use of allografts in ACL reconstructive surgery Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27 6 2019 1873 1881 29860601
63 Busam M.L. Rue J.P. Bach B.R. Jr. Fresh-frozen allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Clin Sports Med 26 4 2007 607 623 17920956
64 Kuhn M.A. Ross G. Allografts in the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 15 3 2007 133 138 17700373
65 Goetz G. de Villiers C. Sadoghi P. Geiger-Gritsch S. Allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (aclr): a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term comparative effectiveness and safety. Results of a health technology assessment Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2 6 2020 e873 e891 33376999
66 Condello V. Zdanowicz U. Di Matteo B. Spalding T. Gelber P.E. Adravanti P. Allograft tendons are a safe and effective option for revision ACL reconstruction: a clinical review Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27 6 2019 1771 1781 30242455
67 Fanelli G.C. Edson C.J. Combined ACL-PCL-medial and lateral side injuries (global laxity) Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 28 3 2020 100 109 32740462
68 Nagda S.H. Altobelli G.G. Bowdry K.A. Brewster C.E. Lombardo S.J. Cost analysis of outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: autograft versus allograft Clin Orthop Relat Res 468 5 2010 1418 1422 20020337
69 Barrera Oro F. Sikka R.S. Wolters B. Graver R. Boyd J.L. Nelson B. Autograft versus allograft: an economic cost comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Arthroscopy 27 9 2011 1219 1225 21820267
70 Li H. Tao H. Cho S. Chen S. Yao Z. Chen S. Difference in graft maturity of the reconstructed anterior cruciate ligament 2 years postoperatively: a comparison between autografts and allografts in young men using clinical and 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging evaluation Am J Sports Med 40 7 2012 1519 1526 22495290
71 Kainer M.A. Linden J.V. Whaley D.N. Holmes H.T. Jarvis W.R. Jernigan D.B. Clostridium infections associated with musculoskeletal-tissue allografts N Engl J Med 350 25 2004 2564 2571 15201413
72 Sikka R.S. Narvy S.J. Vangsness C.T. Jr. Anterior cruciate ligament allograft surgery: underreporting of graft source, graft processing, and donor age Am J Sports Med 39 3 2011 649 655 21062938
73 Crawford S.N. Waterman B.R. Lubowitz J.H. Long-term failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Arthroscopy 29 9 2013 1566 1571 23820260
74 Bottoni C.R. Smith E.L. Shaha J. Shaha S.S. Raybin S.G. Tokish J.M. Autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized clinical study with a minimum 10-year follow-up Am J Sports Med 43 10 2015 2501 2509 26311445
75 Mariscalco M.W. Magnussen R.A. Kaeding C.C. Hewett T.E. Flanigan D.C. Use of irradiated and non-irradiated allograft tissue in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a critical analysis review JBJS Reviews 2 2 2014 e4
76 Fideler B.M. Vangsness C.T. Jr. Lu B. Orlando C and Moore T. Gamma irradiation: effects on biomechanical properties of human bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts Am J Sports Med 23 5 1995 643 646 8526284
77 Guo L. Yang L. Duan X.J. He R. Chen G.X. Wang F.Y. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone graft: comparison of autograft, fresh-frozen allograft, and γ-irradiated allograft Arthroscopy 28 2 2012 211 217 22244101
78 Sun K. Tian S. Zhang J. Xia C. Zhang C. Yu T. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with BPTB autograft, irradiated versus non-irradiated allograft: a prospective randomized clinical study Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17 5 2009 464 474 19139845
79 Chinese Specialist Consensus Group on New Generation Artificial Ligaments Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. The indication of new generation artificial ligaments in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: consensus of Chinese specialists based on a modified Delphi method Chin J Orthop 40 8 2020 488 495
80 Chinese Specialist Consensus Group on New Generation Artificial Ligaments Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Core techniques and adverse events in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a new generation of artificial ligaments:the consensus of Chinese specialists based on a modified Delphi method(Part 2) Chin J Reparative Reconstr Surg 36 9 2022 1 9
81 Chen T. Chen S. Artificial ligaments applied in anterior cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction: current products and experience Chin J Reparative Reconstr Surg 34 1 2020 1 9
82 Dericks G. Ligament advanced reinforcementsystem anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Operat Tech Sports Med 3 3 1995 187 205
83 Noyes F.R. Grood E.S. The strength of the anterior cruciate ligament in humans and Rhesus monkeys J Bone Joint Surg Am 58 8 1976 1074 1082 1002748
84 Chen T. Chen S. Walk out of the historical misunderstanding of artificial ligament used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction--sum up China's successful experience Chinese Journal of the Frontiers of Medical Science(Electronic Version) 12 9 2020 1 7
85 Chen T. Zhang P. Chen J. Hua Y. Chen S. Long-term outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using either synthetics with remnant preservation or hamstring autografts: a 10-year longitudinal study Am J Sports Med 45 12 2017 2739 2750 28892648
86 Wan F. Chen T. Ge Y. Zhang P. Chen S. Effect of nearly isometric ACL reconstruction on graft-tunnel motion: a quantitative clinical study Orthop J Sports Med 7 12 2019 2325967119890382
87 China Artificial Ligament Study Group Clinical multicenter investigation and analysis of the adverse events after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the ligament advanced reinforcement system Chinese Med J 102 41 2022 3312 3320
88 Irrgang J.J. Anderson A.F. Boland A.L. Harner C.D. Kurosaka M. Neyret P. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form Am J Sports Med 29 5 2001 600 613 11573919
89 Ross B.J. Savage-Elliott I. Brown S.M. Mulcahey M.K. Return to play and performance after primary ACL reconstruction in American football players: a systematic review Orthop J Sports Med 8 10 2020 2325967120959654
90 Meredith S.J. Rauer T. Chmielewski T.L. Fink C. Diermeier T. Rothrauff B.B. Return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament injury: panther symposium ACL injury return to sport consensus group J ISAKOS 6 3 2021 138 146 34006577
91 Samitier G. Marcano A.I. Alentorn-Geli E. Cugat R. Farmer K.W. Moser M.W. Failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Arch Bone Jt Surg 3 4 2015 220 240 26550585
92 Tapasvi S. Shekhar A. Revision ACL reconstruction: principles and practice Indian J Orthop 55 2 2021 263 275 33927805
93 Wylie J.D. Marchand L.S. Burks R.T. Etiologic factors that lead to failure after primary anterior cruciate ligament surgery Clin Sports Med 36 1 2017 155 172 27871656
94 Liechti D.J. Chahla J. Dean C.S. Mitchell J.J. Slette E. Menge T.J. Outcomes and risk factors of rerevision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review Arthroscopy 32 10 2016 2151 2159 27289278
95 Morgan J.A. Dahm D. Levy B. Stuart M.J. Group M.S. Femoral tunnel malposition in ACL revision reconstruction J Knee Surg 25 5 2012 361 368 23150344
96 Schuster P. Schulz M. Immendoerfer M. Mayer P. Schlumberger M. Richter J. Septic arthritis after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: evaluation of an arthroscopic graft-retaining treatment protocol Am J Sports Med 43 12 2015 3005 3012 26403209
97 Wang C. Lee Y.H. Siebold R. Recommendations for the management of septic arthritis after ACL reconstruction Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22 9 2014 2136 2144 24061716
98 Pérez-Prieto D. Totlis T. Madjarevic T. Becker R. Ravn C. Monllau J.C. ESSKA and EBJIS recommendations for the management of infections after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R): prevention, surgical treatment and rehabilitation Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31 10 2023 4204 4212 37243789
99 Milewski M.D. Traver J.L. Coene R.P. Williams K. Sugimoto D. Kramer D.E. Effect of age and sex on psychological readiness and patient-reported outcomes 6 Months after primary ACL reconstruction Orthop J Sports Med 11 6 2023 23259671231166012
100 Schmitz J.K. Omar O. Nordkvist A. Hedevik H. Janarv P.M. Stålman A. Poorer patient-reported outcome and increased risk of revision at a 5-year follow-up among patients with septic arthritis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a register-based cohort study of 23,075 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31 10 2023 4090 4098 37395807
101 Sroufe M.D. Sumpter A.E. Thompson X.D. Moran T.E. Bruce Leicht A.S. Diduch D.R. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes, strength, and functional performance in primary versus revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am J Sports Med 51 8 2023 2057 2063 37212572
102 Altmann P. Ponleitner M. Monschein T. Krajnc N. Zulehner G. Zrzavy T. Feasibility of a smartphone app to monitor patient reported outcomes in multiple sclerosis: the haMSter interventional trial Digit Health 8 2022 20552076221135387
103 Nagino K. Sung J. Midorikawa-Inomata A. Eguchi A. Fujimoto K. Okumura Y. The minimal clinically important difference of app-based electronic patient-reported outcomes for hay fever Clin Transl Allergy 13 5 2023 e12244
104 Chamberlain A.M. Editorial commentary: legacy patient-reported outcome measures remain important today despite responder burden, but with further refinement, patient-reported outcomes measurement information system could replace legacy instruments in the future Arthroscopy 39 3 2023 853 855 36740301
105 Webster K.E. Editorial commentary: designing patient-reported outcome measures that have high clinical utility and minimum responder burden: when less is more Arthroscopy 39 5 2023 1139 1140 37019529
106 Bjornsson H. Samuelsson K. Sundemo D. Desai N. Sernert N. Rostgard-Christensen L. A randomized controlled trial with mean 16-year follow-up comparing hamstring and patellar tendon autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am J Sports Med 44 9 2016 2304 2313 27229354
107 Sanders T.L. Pareek A. Kremers H.M. Bryan A.J. Levy B.A. Stuart M.J. Long-term follow-up of isolated ACL tears treated without ligament reconstruction Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25 2 2017 493 500 27221641
108 Zaffagnini S. Marcheggiani Muccioli G.M. Grassi A. Roberti di Sarsina T. Raggi F. Signorelli C. Over-the-top ACL reconstruction plus extra-articular lateral tenodesis with hamstring tendon grafts: prospective evaluation with 20-year minimum follow-up Am J Sports Med 45 14 2017 3233 3242 28922015
109 Hirschmann M.T. Müller W. Complex function of the knee joint: the current understanding of the knee Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23 10 2015 2780 2788 25962963
110 Musahl V. Karlsson J. Anterior cruciate ligament tear N Engl J Med 380 24 2019 2341 2348 31189037
111 Hefti F. Muller W. Jakob R.P. Staubli H.U. Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1 3–4 1993 226 234 8536037
112 Musahl V. Hoshino Y. Becker R. Karlsson J. Rotatory knee laxity and the pivot shift Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20 4 2012 601 602 22198359
113 Hurley W.L. Thompson McGuire D. Influences of clinician technique on performance and interpretation of the lachman test J Athl Train 38 1 2003 34 43 12937470
114 Horvath A. Meredith S.J. Nishida K. Hoshino Y. Musahl V. Objectifying the pivot shift test Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 28 2 2020 36 40 32345924
115 Runer A. Roberti di Sarsina T. Starke V. Iltchev A. Felmet G. Braun S. The evaluation of Rolimeter, KLT, KiRA and KT-1000 arthrometer in healthy individuals shows acceptable intra-rater but poor inter-rater reliability in the measurement of anterior tibial knee translation Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29 8 2021 2717 2726 33791824
116 Myrer J.W. Schulthies S.S. Fellingham G.W. Relative and absolute reliability of the KT-2000 arthrometer for uninjured knees. Testing at 67, 89, 134, and 178 N and manual maximum forces Am J Sports Med 24 1 1996 104 108 8638742
117 Liu W. Maitland M.E. Bell G.D. A modeling study of partial ACL injury: simulated KT-2000 arthrometer tests J Biomech Eng 124 3 2002 294 301 12071264
118 Alqahtani Y. Murgier J. Beaufils P. Boisrenoult P. Steltzlen C. Pujol N. Anterior tibial laxity using the GNRB® device in healthy knees Knee 25 1 2018 34 39 29307479
119 Cojean T. Batailler C. Robert H. Cheze L. GNRB® laximeter with magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice for complete and partial anterior cruciate ligament tears detection: a prospective diagnostic study with arthroscopic validation on 214 patients Knee 42 2023 373 381 37172464
120 Kocher M.S. Steadman J.R. Briggs K.K. Sterett W.I. Hawkins R.J. Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Am J Sports Med 32 3 2004 629 634 15090377
121 Hoshino Y. Kuroda R. Nagamune K. Yagi M. Mizuno K. Yamaguchi M. In vivo measurement of the pivot-shift test in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee using an electromagnetic device Am J Sports Med 35 7 2007 1098 1104 17351123
122 Benjaminse A. Gokeler A. van der Schans C.P. Clinical diagnosis of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36 5 2006 267 288 16715828
123 Bagiella E. Chang H. Power analysis and sample size calculation J Mol Cell Cardiol 133 2019 214 216 30639699
124 Ueki C. Sakaguchi G. Importance of awareness of type II error Ann Thorac Surg 105 1 2018 333
125 Charles P. Giraudeau B. Dechartres A. Baron G. Ravaud P. Reporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: review BMJ 338 2009 b1732
126 Stokes L. Sample size calculation for a hypothesis test JAMA 312 2 2014 180 181 25005655
127 Barrett A.M. Craft J.A. Replogle W.H. Hydrick J.M. Barrett G.R. Anterior cruciate ligament graft failure: a comparison of graft type based on age and Tegner activity level Am J Sports Med 39 10 2011 2194 2198 21784999
128 Kim K.T. Kim H.J. Lee H.I. Park Y.J. Kang D.G. Yoo J.I. A comparison of results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in over 40 and under 40 Years of age: a meta-analysis Knee Surg Relat Res 30 2 2018 95 106 29843196
129 Webster K.E. Nagelli C.V. Hewett T.E. Feller J.A. Factors associated with psychological readiness to return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery Am J Sports Med 46 7 2018 1545 1550 29718684
130 Filbay S.R. Culvenor A.G. Ackerman I.N. Russell T.G. Crossley K.M. Quality of life in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis Br J Sports Med 49 16 2015 1033 1041 26224582
131 Filbay S.R. Grevnerts H.T. Sonesson S. Hedevik H. Kvist J. The Swedish version of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life measure (ACL-QOL): translation and measurement properties Qual Life Res 32 2 2023 593 604 36227526
132 Roos E.M. Roos H.P. Lohmander L.S. Ekdahl C. Beynnon B.D. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28 2 1998 88 96 9699158
133 Lysholm J. Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale Am J Sports Med 10 3 1982 150 154 6896798
134 Marx R.G. Stump T.J. Jones E.C. Wickiewicz T.L. Warren R.F. Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee Am J Sports Med 29 2 2001 213 218 11292048
135 Tegner Y. Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries Clin Orthop Relat Res 198 1985 43 49
136 Krych A.J. Robertson C.M. Williams R.J. 3rd Return to athletic activity after osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee Am J Sports Med 40 5 2012 1053 1059 22316548
137 Randsborg P.H. Cepeda N. Adamec D. Rodeo S.A. Ranawat A. Pearle A.D. Patient-reported outcome, return to sport, and revision rates 7-9 Years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from a cohort of 2042 patients Am J Sports Med 50 2 2022 423 432 35040694
138 Paterno M.V. Schmitt L.C. Ford K.R. Rauh M.J. Myer G.D. Huang B. Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport Am J Sports Med 38 10 2010 1968 1978 20702858
139 Musahl V. Herbst E. Burnham J.M. Fu F.H. The anterolateral complex and anterolateral ligament of the knee J Am Acad Orthop Surg 26 8 2018 261 267 29517517
140 Head P.L. Kasser R. Appling S. Cappaert T. Singhal K. Zucker-Levin A. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and dynamic stability at time of release for return to sport Phys Ther Sport 38 2019 80 86 31071659
141 Chen J. Kim J. Shao W. Schlecht S.H. Baek S.Y. Jones A.K. An anterior cruciate ligament failure mechanism Am J Sports Med 47 9 2019 2067 2076 31307223
142 Miller M.D. Kew M.E. Quinn C.A. Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction J Am Acad Orthop Surg 29 17 2021 723 731 34096902
143 Cinque M.E. Chahla J. Moatshe G. DePhillipo N.N. Kennedy N.I. Godin J.A. Outcomes and complication rates after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are similar in younger and older patients Orthop J Sports Med 5 10 2017 2325967117729659
144 Taylor M.Z. Caldwell P.E. 3rd Pearson S.E. Failure and complication rates in common sports and arthroscopic procedures: reality check Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 30 1 2022 10 16 35113837
145 Røtterud J.H. Sivertsen E.A. Forssblad M. Engebretsen L. Arøen A. Effect of meniscal and focal cartilage lesions on patient-reported outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a nationwide cohort study from Norway and Sweden of 8476 patients with 2-year follow-up Am J Sports Med 41 3 2013 535 543 23371474
146 Runer A. Wierer G. Herbst E. Hepperger C. Herbort M. Gföller P. There is no difference between quadriceps- and hamstring tendon autografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 2-year patient-reported outcome study Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26 2 2018 605 614 28477270
147 Mayr H.O. Willkomm D. Stoehr A. Schettle M. Suedkamp N.P. Bernstein A. Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon allograft and autograft: 2- and 5-year results Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132 6 2012 867 874 22350055
148 Bigouette J.P. Owen E.C. Lantz B.B.A. Hoellrich R.G. Huston L.J. Haas A.K. Relationship between sports participation after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and 2-year patient-reported outcome measures Am J Sports Med 47 9 2019 2056 2066 31225999
149 von Recum J. Gehm J. Guehring T. Vetter S.Y. von der Linden P. Grützner P.A. Autologous bone graft versus silicate-substituted calcium phosphate in the treatment of tunnel defects in 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized controlled study with a minimum follow-up of 2 years Arthroscopy 36 1 2020 178 185 31864574
150 Øiestad B.E. Engebretsen L. Storheim K. Risberg M.A. Knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a systematic review Am J Sports Med 37 7 2009 1434 1443 19567666
151 Luc B. Gribble P.A. Pietrosimone B.G. Osteoarthritis prevalence following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and numbers-needed-to-treat analysis J Athl Train 49 6 2014 806 819 25232663
152 Vairo G.L. McBrier N.M. Miller S.J. Buckley W.E. Premature knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction dependent on autograft J Sport Rehabil 19 1 2010 86 97 20231747
153 Bhandari M. Giannoudis P.V. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it is not Injury 37 4 2006 302 306 16487527
154 Somerson J.S. Bartush K.C. Shroff J.B. Bhandari M. Zelle B.A. Loss to follow-up in orthopaedic clinical trials: a systematic review Int Orthop 40 11 2016 2213 2219 27142421
