Cargando…

Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: This review sought to evaluate the literature on the initial assessment and diagnostic pathway for patients with a suspected Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) tear. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for eligible studies, PRISMA guidelines were followed. Stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Allott, Natasha E. H., Banger, Matthew S., McGregor, Alison H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9261037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35799147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05595-0
_version_ 1784742180143759360
author Allott, Natasha E. H.
Banger, Matthew S.
McGregor, Alison H.
author_facet Allott, Natasha E. H.
Banger, Matthew S.
McGregor, Alison H.
author_sort Allott, Natasha E. H.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This review sought to evaluate the literature on the initial assessment and diagnostic pathway for patients with a suspected Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) tear. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for eligible studies, PRISMA guidelines were followed. Studies were included if they used at least one assessment method to assess for ACL injury and participants were assessed at an acute trauma centre within 6-weeks of injury. Article quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. RESULTS: A total of 353 studies were assessed for eligibility, 347 were excluded for the following reasons: injuries were not assessed in an acute trauma setting, injuries were not acute, participants had previous ACL injuries or chronic joint deformities affecting the knee, participants were under 18, or participants included animals or cadavers. A total of six studies were included in the review. Common assessment methods included: laxity tests, joint effusion, inability to continue activity, and a history of a ‘pop’ and ‘giving way’ at the time of injury. Diagnostic accuracy varied greatly between the assessment method and the assessing clinician. Gold standard diagnostics were MRI and arthroscopy. A weighted meta-mean calculated the time to reach diagnosis to be 68.60 days [CI 23.94, 113.24]. The mean number of appointments to reach diagnosis varied from 2–5. Delay to surgery or surgical consultation ranged from 61 to 328 days. CONCLUSION: Clinicians in the Emergency Department are not proficient in performing the assessment methods that are used for diagnosis in acute ACL injury. Reliance on specialist assessments or radiological methods inevitably increases the time to reach a diagnosis, which has repercussions on management options. There is an ever-growing demand to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency; further exploration into quantitative measures of instability would aid the assessment of peripheral joint assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9261037
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92610372022-07-08 Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review Allott, Natasha E. H. Banger, Matthew S. McGregor, Alison H. BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research OBJECTIVE: This review sought to evaluate the literature on the initial assessment and diagnostic pathway for patients with a suspected Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) tear. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for eligible studies, PRISMA guidelines were followed. Studies were included if they used at least one assessment method to assess for ACL injury and participants were assessed at an acute trauma centre within 6-weeks of injury. Article quality was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. RESULTS: A total of 353 studies were assessed for eligibility, 347 were excluded for the following reasons: injuries were not assessed in an acute trauma setting, injuries were not acute, participants had previous ACL injuries or chronic joint deformities affecting the knee, participants were under 18, or participants included animals or cadavers. A total of six studies were included in the review. Common assessment methods included: laxity tests, joint effusion, inability to continue activity, and a history of a ‘pop’ and ‘giving way’ at the time of injury. Diagnostic accuracy varied greatly between the assessment method and the assessing clinician. Gold standard diagnostics were MRI and arthroscopy. A weighted meta-mean calculated the time to reach diagnosis to be 68.60 days [CI 23.94, 113.24]. The mean number of appointments to reach diagnosis varied from 2–5. Delay to surgery or surgical consultation ranged from 61 to 328 days. CONCLUSION: Clinicians in the Emergency Department are not proficient in performing the assessment methods that are used for diagnosis in acute ACL injury. Reliance on specialist assessments or radiological methods inevitably increases the time to reach a diagnosis, which has repercussions on management options. There is an ever-growing demand to improve diagnostic accuracy and efficiency; further exploration into quantitative measures of instability would aid the assessment of peripheral joint assessment. BioMed Central 2022-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9261037/ /pubmed/35799147 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05595-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Allott, Natasha E. H.
Banger, Matthew S.
McGregor, Alison H.
Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
title Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
title_full Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
title_fullStr Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
title_short Evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute ACL injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
title_sort evaluating the diagnostic pathway for acute acl injuries in trauma centres: a systematic review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9261037/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35799147
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05595-0
work_keys_str_mv AT allottnatashaeh evaluatingthediagnosticpathwayforacuteaclinjuriesintraumacentresasystematicreview
AT bangermatthews evaluatingthediagnosticpathwayforacuteaclinjuriesintraumacentresasystematicreview
AT mcgregoralisonh evaluatingthediagnosticpathwayforacuteaclinjuriesintraumacentresasystematicreview