View in EDS

Critical analysis of knee ligament rating systems... presented at the AOSSM-JOSSM Trans-Pacific meeting, Kauai, Hawaii, January 1991.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Critical analysis of knee ligament rating systems... presented at the AOSSM-JOSSM Trans-Pacific meeting, Kauai, Hawaii, January 1991.
Authors: Sgaglione NA (AUTHOR), Del Pizzo W (AUTHOR), Fox JM (AUTHOR), Friedman MJ (AUTHOR)
Source: American Journal of Sports Medicine. Nov/Dec95, Vol. 23 Issue 6, p660-667. 8p.
Abstract: Sixty-five patients who consecutively underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were studied using four individual, categoric, knee score rating systems. Different results were noted at followup (mean, 35 months; range, 24 to 58) depending on the rating method used. All patients were graded using the Hospital for Special Surgery, Lysholm, Tegner activity, and Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating systems. The Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating individual scores were noted to be lower than the Hospital for Special Surgery and Lysholm scores for subjective and objective outcome assessment. The Hospital for Special Surgery and Lysholm scores did not correlate highly with the Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating final rating, but they did correlate with each other. The use of ligament rating scores tended to inflate results, particularly when raw scores were converted to overall categoric ratings (e.g., excellent, good). The Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating system correlates more highly with individual grading and most precisely defines outcome in athletically active patients. Sources of error may be introduced by a disproportionate combination of unrelated scores or by overrating low-activity-level individuals who avoid stressing their knees. Avoidance of data generalization remains the optimal method for studying anterior cruciate ligament surgery outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of American Journal of Sports Medicine is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Sixty-five patients who consecutively underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were studied using four individual, categoric, knee score rating systems. Different results were noted at followup (mean, 35 months; range, 24 to 58) depending on the rating method used. All patients were graded using the Hospital for Special Surgery, Lysholm, Tegner activity, and Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating systems. The Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating individual scores were noted to be lower than the Hospital for Special Surgery and Lysholm scores for subjective and objective outcome assessment. The Hospital for Special Surgery and Lysholm scores did not correlate highly with the Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating final rating, but they did correlate with each other. The use of ligament rating scores tended to inflate results, particularly when raw scores were converted to overall categoric ratings (e.g., excellent, good). The Cincinnati Knee Ligament rating system correlates more highly with individual grading and most precisely defines outcome in athletically active patients. Sources of error may be introduced by a disproportionate combination of unrelated scores or by overrating low-activity-level individuals who avoid stressing their knees. Avoidance of data generalization remains the optimal method for studying anterior cruciate ligament surgery outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:03635465
DOI:10.1177/036354659502300604