The aim of this study was to establish consensus statements on medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, anteromedialization tibial tubercle osteotomy, trochleoplasty, and rehabilitation and return to sporting activity in patients with patellar instability, using the modified Delphi process. This was the second part of a study dealing with these aspects of management in these patients. As in part I, a total of 60 surgeons from 11 countries contributed to the development of consensus statements based on their expertise in this area. They were assigned to one of seven working groups defined by subtopics of interest. Consensus was defined as achieving between 80% and 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as between 90% and 99% agreement, and 100% agreement was considered unanimous.Aims
Methods
Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI. This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion.Aims
Methods
