{"title":"膝关节软骨手术失败的处理 - 国际德尔菲共识声明","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjp.2024.100194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Articular cartilage injuries of the knee are a complex and challenging clinical pathology.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a Delphi process on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A consensus process on knee cartilage injuries utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Seventy-nine surgeons across 17 countries participated in these consensus statements. Eleven questions were generated on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery, with 3 rounds of questionnaires and final voting occurring. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was defined as 100% agreement with a proposed statement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 11 total questions and consensus statements on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery developed from 3 rounds of voting, 0 achieved unanimous consensus, 10 achieved strong consensus, and 1 achieved consensus.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The statements that achieved strong consensus related to revision cartilage indications, contraindications, lesion size, prior procedures, unipolar/bipolar lesions, and salvage procedures. The statement that did not achieve strong consensus was related to the management of a failed osteochondral autograft/allograft.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100760,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of failed knee cartilage surgery—an international Delphi consensus statement\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcjp.2024.100194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Articular cartilage injuries of the knee are a complex and challenging clinical pathology.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a Delphi process on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A consensus process on knee cartilage injuries utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Seventy-nine surgeons across 17 countries participated in these consensus statements. Eleven questions were generated on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery, with 3 rounds of questionnaires and final voting occurring. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was defined as 100% agreement with a proposed statement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 11 total questions and consensus statements on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery developed from 3 rounds of voting, 0 achieved unanimous consensus, 10 achieved strong consensus, and 1 achieved consensus.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The statements that achieved strong consensus related to revision cartilage indications, contraindications, lesion size, prior procedures, unipolar/bipolar lesions, and salvage procedures. The statement that did not achieve strong consensus was related to the management of a failed osteochondral autograft/allograft.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100194\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667254524000301\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cartilage & Joint Preservation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667254524000301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Management of failed knee cartilage surgery—an international Delphi consensus statement
Introduction
Articular cartilage injuries of the knee are a complex and challenging clinical pathology.
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a Delphi process on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery.
Methods
A consensus process on knee cartilage injuries utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Seventy-nine surgeons across 17 countries participated in these consensus statements. Eleven questions were generated on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery, with 3 rounds of questionnaires and final voting occurring. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was defined as 100% agreement with a proposed statement.
Results
Of the 11 total questions and consensus statements on the management of failed knee cartilage surgery developed from 3 rounds of voting, 0 achieved unanimous consensus, 10 achieved strong consensus, and 1 achieved consensus.
Conclusions
The statements that achieved strong consensus related to revision cartilage indications, contraindications, lesion size, prior procedures, unipolar/bipolar lesions, and salvage procedures. The statement that did not achieve strong consensus was related to the management of a failed osteochondral autograft/allograft.