BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting best practice guidelines in the field of cartilage repair of the ankle are based on both low quality and low levels of evidence. Therefore, an international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions based on the best available evidence on key topics within cartilage repair of the ankle. The purpose of this article was to report on the consensus statements on "Revision and Salvage Management" developed at the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle. METHODS: Seventy-five international experts in cartilage repair of the ankle representing 25 countries and 1 territory were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Questions and statements were drafted within 11 working groups focusing on specific topics within cartilage repair of the ankle, after which a comprehensive literature review was performed and the available evidence for each statement was graded. Discussion and debate occurred in cases where statements were not agreed on in unanimous fashion within the working groups. A final vote was then held, and the strength of consensus was characterized as follows: consensus, 51% to 74%; strong consensus, 75% to 99%; unanimous, 100%. RESULTS: A total of 8 statements on revision and salvage management reached consensus during the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle. One achieved unanimous support and 7 reached strong consensus (greater than 75% agreement). All statements reached at least 85% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This international consensus derived from leaders in the field will assist clinicians with revision and salvage management in the cartilage repair of the ankle.

Revision and Salvage Management: Proceedings of the International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle

Longo UG;
2018-01-01

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The evidence supporting best practice guidelines in the field of cartilage repair of the ankle are based on both low quality and low levels of evidence. Therefore, an international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions based on the best available evidence on key topics within cartilage repair of the ankle. The purpose of this article was to report on the consensus statements on "Revision and Salvage Management" developed at the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle. METHODS: Seventy-five international experts in cartilage repair of the ankle representing 25 countries and 1 territory were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Questions and statements were drafted within 11 working groups focusing on specific topics within cartilage repair of the ankle, after which a comprehensive literature review was performed and the available evidence for each statement was graded. Discussion and debate occurred in cases where statements were not agreed on in unanimous fashion within the working groups. A final vote was then held, and the strength of consensus was characterized as follows: consensus, 51% to 74%; strong consensus, 75% to 99%; unanimous, 100%. RESULTS: A total of 8 statements on revision and salvage management reached consensus during the 2017 International Consensus Meeting on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle. One achieved unanimous support and 7 reached strong consensus (greater than 75% agreement). All statements reached at least 85% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: This international consensus derived from leaders in the field will assist clinicians with revision and salvage management in the cartilage repair of the ankle.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12610/800
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact