AIMTo develop practical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of the painful snapping elbow syndrome (SE).METHODSClinical studies were searched in the databases PubMed and Scopus for the phrases “SE”, “snapping triceps”, “snapping ulnar nerve” and “snapping annular ligament”. A total of 36 relevant studies were identified. From these we extracted information about number of patients, diagnostic methods, patho-anatomical findings, treatments and outcomes. Practical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of SE were developed based on analysis of the data. We present two illustrative patient cases-one with intra-articular pathology and one with extra-articular pathology.RESULTSSnapping is audible, palpable and often visible. It has a lateral (intra-articular) or medial (extra-articular) pathology. Snapping over the medial humeral epicondyle is caused by dislocation of the ulnar nerve or a part of the triceps tendon, and is demonstrated by dynamic ultrasonography. Treatment is by open surgery. Lateral snapping over the radial head has an intra-articular pathology: A synovial plica, a torn annular ligament or a meniscus-like remnant from the foetal elbow. Pathology can be visualized by conventional arthrography, magnetic resonance (MR) arthrography, high resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthroscopy, while conventional MRI and radiographs often turn out normal. Treatment is by arthroscopic or eventual open resection. Early surgical intervention is recommended as the snapping can damage the ulnar nerve (medial) or the intra-articular cartilage (lateral). If medial snapping only occurs during repeated or loaded extension/flexion of the elbow (in sports or work) it may be treated by reduction of these activities. Differential diagnoses are loose bodies (which can be visualized by radiographs) and postero-lateral instability (demonstrates by clinical examination). An algorithm for diagnosis and treatment is suggested.CONCLUSIONThe primary step is establishment of laterality. From this follows relevant diagnostic measures and treatment as defined in this guideline.

Background:The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in children is increasing. However, no standardized core set of outcome measures exists for evaluating pediatric ACL injuries.Purpose:To perform a scoping review of the literature to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective outcome measures used to evaluate pediatric patients after ACL injury and to classify these in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) domains.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:The literature was systematically searched with the PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. The inclusion criteria were Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, German, or English language; publication between 2010 and 2018; pediatric ACL injury (patients ≤15 years old); and outcome measures. The selected papers were screened for title, abstract, and full text in accordance with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.Results:A total of 68 papers (4286 patients; mean ± SD age, 12.2 ± 2.3 years) were included. Nineteen PROMs and 11 objective outcome measures were identified. The most frequently reported PROMs were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form (51% of studies), Lysholm scoring scale (46% of studies) and Tegner activity rating scale (37% of studies). Additionally, return to sport was reported in 41% of studies. The most frequent objective measures were knee laxity (76% of studies), growth disturbances (69% of studies), range of motion (41% of studies), and muscle strength (21% of studies). With respect to the ICF domains, the IKDC covered all 3 ICF health domains, the Lysholm score covered the Body Structure and Function and the Activity Limitation domains, while the Tegner score covered the Participation Restriction domain. Objectively measured knee joint laxity, range of motion, and muscle strength covered 1 domain (Body Structure and Function).Conclusion:Pediatric patients with ACL injury were mainly evaluated subjectively with the IKDC and objectively by knee joint laxity. No consensus exists in the evaluation of children after ACL injury. The majority of applied outcome measures are developed for adults. To cover the ICF health domains, future research needs to consider reliable and valid outcome measures relevant for pediatric patients with ACL injury.

Purpose The aim of this ESSKA consensus is to give recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion to improve diagnosis, preoperative planning, indication and surgical strategy in ACL revision. Methods The European expert surgeons and scientists were divided into four groups to participate in this consensus. A "literature group" (four surgeons); "steering group" (14 surgeons and scientists); "rating group" (19 surgeons) and inally "peer review group" (51 representatives of the ESSKA-ailiated national societies from 27 countries). The steering group prepared eighteen question-answer sets. The quality of the answers received grades of recommendation ranging from A (high-level scientiic support), to B (scientiic presumption), C (low level scientiic support) or D (expert opinion). These question-answer sets were then evaluated by the rating group. All answers were scored from 1 to 9. The comments of the rating group were incorporated by the steering group and the consensus was submitted to the rating group a second time. Once a general consensus was reached between the steering and rating groups, the question-answer sets were submitted to the peer review group. A inal combined meeting of all the members of the consensus was held to ratify the document. ResultsThe literature review for the diagnosis and preoperative planning of ACL revision revealed a rather low scientiic quality. None of the 18 questions was graded A and six received a grade B. The mean rating of all the questions by the rating group was 8.4 ± 0.3. The questions and recommendations are listed below. Conclusion ACL revision surgery is a widely debated subject with many diferent opinions and techniques. The literature reveals a poor level of standardisation. Therefore, this international consensus project is of great importance. Level of Evidence II.

ObjectivesKnee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-Child is a modification of the adult KOOS aiming to evaluate knee injury, including ACL deficiency. However, the measurement properties of KOOS-Child have not been assessed in a cohort of children with ACL deficiency. We aimed to study the structure of KOOS-Child using modern test theory models (Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)).MethodsData were collected prospectively in a cohort of children with ACL deficiency at three time points: before-and-after ACL surgery, and at 1-year follow-up. For each subscale, structural validity through the fit of a CFA model was evaluated for 153 respondents. Modification indices were examined to find the model of best fit, confirmed using Rasch analysis. Responsiveness was reported for each subscale. Reliability was calculated for each item. Floor and ceiling effects, and Person-item distribution were reported.ResultsAll subscales showed inadequate fit to a unidimensional CFA model. Rasch analysis confirmed these results. Adjusting the subscales improved model fit, although this was still quite poor, except for the quality of life subscale. With one exception, all items demonstrated ceiling effects. Person-item distribution confirmed this. Due to lack of fit, reliability was not reported. All subscales were able to detect change from baseline to 1-year follow-up.ConclusionsKOOS-Child exhibits inadequate measurement properties in its current form for children with ACL deficiency. Suggestions to make the subscales fit the models better and improve accuracy of KOOS-Child are presented. However, the large ceiling effects observed may reduce sensitivity and induce type 2 errors.