Article Text

Download PDFPDF
How to get a better picture of the ACL injury problem? A call to systematically include conservatively managed patients in ACL registries
  1. Romain Seil1,2,
  2. Caroline Mouton2,
  3. Daniel Theisen2
  1. 1 Sports Clinic, Centre Hospitalier Luxembourg—Clinique d'Eich, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
  2. 2 Sports Medicine Research Laboratory—Luxembourg Institute of Health, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
  1. Correspondence to Dr Romain Seil, Centre Hospitalier Luxembourg—Clinique d'Eich, Sports Clinic, 76, rue d'Eich, L-1460 Luxembourg; rseil{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

ACL injury registries have provided substantial new knowledge to sports medicine/sports physio. Registries aggregate a large amount of individual data,1 sometimes via collaboration among different institutions.2 Nevertheless, a systematic recording of ACL-injured patients is non-existent or at its very beginnings in many countries.

Owing to the variety and available resources of different healthcare systems, organising registries on a national level is difficult. In Europe, the pioneering Scandinavian countries were followed by a private initiative from the UK, which started in 2014.3 Currently, efforts to set up data collection are also being made in the German-speaking countries. Registry data are helpful in at least three ways: (1) in improving treatment outcomes through feedback to the treating physicians and institutions, (2) in detecting unreliable procedures and devices and (3) in identifying outcome-associated prognostic factors.4 Despite this focused …

View Full Text


  • Contributors RS drafted the article, CM and DT revised it critically for important intellectual content. All the authors approved the final submitted version.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.