S G F Abram1, D J Beard1, A J Price1. 1. Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal consensus process was undertaken applying nominal group, Delphi, and appropriateness methods. Consensus was first reached on the terminology relating to the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions. A series of simulated clinical scenarios was then created and the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscal surgery or nonoperative treatment in each scenario was rated by the group. The process was informed throughout by the latest published, and previously unpublished, clinical and epidemiological evidence. Scenarios were then grouped together based upon the similarity of clinical features and ratings to form the guideline for treatment. Feedback on the draft guideline was sought from the entire membership of BASK before final revisions and approval by the consensus group. RESULTS: A total of 45 simulated clinical scenarios were refined to five common clinical presentations and six corresponding treatment recommendations. The final guideline stratifies patients based upon a new, standardized classification of symptoms, signs, radiological findings, duration of symptoms, and previous treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 BASK Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery Treatment Guidance will facilitate the consistent identification and treatment of patients with meniscal lesions. It is hoped that this guidance will be adopted nationally by surgeons and help inform healthcare commissioning guidance. Validation in clinical practice is now required and several areas of uncertainty in relation to treatment should be a priority for future high-quality prospective studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:652-659.
AIMS: The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal consensus process was undertaken applying nominal group, Delphi, and appropriateness methods. Consensus was first reached on the terminology relating to the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions. A series of simulated clinical scenarios was then created and the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscal surgery or nonoperative treatment in each scenario was rated by the group. The process was informed throughout by the latest published, and previously unpublished, clinical and epidemiological evidence. Scenarios were then grouped together based upon the similarity of clinical features and ratings to form the guideline for treatment. Feedback on the draft guideline was sought from the entire membership of BASK before final revisions and approval by the consensus group. RESULTS: A total of 45 simulated clinical scenarios were refined to five common clinical presentations and six corresponding treatment recommendations. The final guideline stratifies patients based upon a new, standardized classification of symptoms, signs, radiological findings, duration of symptoms, and previous treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2018 BASK Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery Treatment Guidance will facilitate the consistent identification and treatment of patients with meniscal lesions. It is hoped that this guidance will be adopted nationally by surgeons and help inform healthcare commissioning guidance. Validation in clinical practice is now required and several areas of uncertainty in relation to treatment should be a priority for future high-quality prospective studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:652-659.
Authors: Stephen Lyman; Luke S Oh; Keith R Reinhardt; Lisa A Mandl; Jeffrey N Katz; Bruce A Levy; Robert G Marx Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Warren R Dunn; Bruce R Schackman; Colin Walsh; Stephen Lyman; Edward C Jones; Russell F Warren; Robert G Marx Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Martin Englund; Ali Guermazi; Daniel Gale; David J Hunter; Piran Aliabadi; Margaret Clancy; David T Felson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Julia C A Noorduyn; Victor A van de Graaf; Nienke W Willigenburg; Gwendolyne G M Scholten-Peeters; Esther J Kret; Rogier A van Dijk; Rachelle Buchbinder; Gillian A Hawker; Michel W Coppieters; Rudolf W Poolman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Denise O'Connor; Renea V Johnston; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; Rudolf W Poolman; Sheila Cyril; Per O Vandvik; Rachelle Buchbinder Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Robert F LaPrade; Tim Spalding; Iain R Murray; Jorge Chahla; Marc R Safran; Christopher M Larson; Scott C Faucett; Richard von Bormann; Robert H Brophy; Rodrigo Maestu; Aaron J Krych; Ponky Firer; Lars Engebretsen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Imran Ahmed; Mike Bowes; Charles E Hutchinson; Nicholas Parsons; Sophie Staniszewska; Andrew James Price; Andrew Metcalfe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Imran Ahmed; Chetan Khatri; Nicholas Parsons; Charles E Hutchinson; Sophie Staniszewska; Andrew James Price; Andrew Metcalfe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Imran Ahmed; Fatima Dhaif; Simon G F Abram; Nick Parsons; Charles Hutchinson; Andrew Price; Sophie Staniszewska; Andrew Metcalfe Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2021-05-30