HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hrubesch, R. Articles by Eibl, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hrubesch, R. Articles by Eibl, G. Related Collections Reconstruction

Comparison of Score Evaluations and Instrumented Measurement After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Ralph Hrubesch, MD^*,, Christoph Rangger, MD^*, Markus Reichkendler, MD^*, Romed Franz Sailer, MD^*, Wulf Gloetzer, MD^* and Günther Eibl

^* University Hospital of Traumatology
Institute for Biostatistics and Documentation, Innsbruck, Austria

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Ralph Hrubesch, MD, Universitätsklinik für Unfallchirurgie, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

Forty-four patients who had undergone unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were evaluated retrospectively with seven different scoring systems (International Knee Documentation Committee, Orthopädische Arbeitsgruppe Knie, Lysholm, Feagin and Blake, Zarins and Rowe, Cincinnati, and Marshall scores). The results varied between systems and therefore lacked reliability. Of the 44 patients, 32 were rated as excellent according to the Cincinnati score while only 3 patients were rated as normal according to the International Knee Documentation Committee form. Good and excellent results were found twice as frequently with the Cincinnati and Lysholm scores compared with the scores of Zarins and Rowe or the International Knee Documentation Committee form. Statistical analysis confirmed this observation and revealed significant differences between the scoring systems. Side-to-side differences using the manual maximum displacement test with the KT-1000 arthrometer revealed good correlation with the International Knee Documentation Committee and the Orthopädische Arbeitsgruppe Knie questionnaires. None of the other scoring systems, which do not measure anterior laxity, produced reasonable correlation with instrumented measurements. We found that certain population-specific factors as well as the distribution of single findings can distort the results of scoring systems. To avoid these interference factors, the patient sample should be homogeneous and selected prospectively and there should be agreement about the value of single findings.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Risberg, I. Holm, G. Myklebust, and L. Engebretsen Neuromuscular Training Versus Strength Training During First 6 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial Physical Therapy, June 1, 2007; 87(6): 737 - 750. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Scarvell, P. N. Smith, K. M. Refshauge, H. R. Galloway, and K. R. Woods Does anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restore normal knee kinematics?: A PROSPECTIVE MRI ANALYSIS OVER TWO YEARS J Bone Joint Surg Br, March 1, 2006; 88-B(3): 324 - 330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Kocher, J. R. Steadman, K. K. Briggs, W. I. Sterett, and R. J. Hawkins Relationships Between Objective Assessment of Ligament Stability and Subjective Assessment of Symptoms and Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., April 1, 2004; 32(3): 629 - 634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]