Literature DB >> 8309693

[Current state of evaluation of knee ligament lesions. The new IKDC knee evaluation form ].

F Hefti1, W Müller.   

Abstract

Various scoring systems have been proposed for quantification of the disability caused by knee ligament injuries and to evaluation of the results of their treatment. None of them was found worldwide acceptance, mainly because all scoring systems attribute numerical values to factors that are not quantifiable, after which the arbitrary scores for parameters that are not comparable with each other are added together. For these reasons a group of knee surgeons from Europe and America met in 1987 and founded the International Knee Documentation Committee. A common terminology and an evaluation form were created. This form is the standard form for use in all publications on results of treatment of knee ligament injuries. It is a concise one-page form and includes a documentation section, a qualification section and a evaluation section. For evaluation there are four problem areas (subjective assessment, symptoms, range of motion and ligament examination). These are supplemented by four additional areas that are documented but are not included in the evaluation (compartmental findings, donor site pathology, X-ray findings and functional tests). The form can be used pre- and postoperatively and at follow-up. The Committee also laid down that in a publication the minimum follow-up time for short-term results should be 2 years, for medium-term results, 5 years, and for long-term results, 10 years. Most of the sheet is devoted to the qualification section. It is called "qualification" and not "scoring" section because no scores are given. Each parameter is qualified as "normal", "nearly normal", "abnormal" or "severely abnormal". This qualification is less subjective and emotional than "very good", "good", "fair" and "poor". No knee and no knee function can be better than normal, and it is rather doubtful whether any knee that has been operated on can ever be "normal" again. For evaluation, the parameters of the four problem areas "subjective assessment", "symptoms", "range of motion" and "ligament examination" are qualified for the group qualification. The worst qualification within the group is taken as the group qualification. The worst group qualification is taken as the final evaluation. If the knee is abnormal in any of the problem areas it cannot be entered as normal knee. For knees with chronic pathology it is also possible to evaluate the sum of levels of improvement or deterioration of all groups compared with the preoperative evaluation. The committee also recommends that terms describing knee ligament problems should be used according to the definitions published by Noyes et al.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8309693

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  30 in total

1.  Autologous chondrocytes versus filtered bone marrow mesenchymal stem/stromal cells for knee cartilage repair-a prospective study.

Authors:  David Martinčič; Jure Leban; Giuseppe Filardo; Maurizio Busacca; Ariana Barlič; Matija Veber; Matej Drobnič
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Twenty-year results of combined meniscal allograft transplantation, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and advancement of the medial collateral ligament.

Authors:  Gabriela von Lewinski; Klaus A Milachowski; Karl Weismeier; Dieter Kohn; Carl Joachim Wirth
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-06-19       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Anterior cruciate ligament injury in female athletes: epidemiology.

Authors:  M L Ireland
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Posterolateral corner reconstruction for posterolateral rotatory instability combined with posterior cruciate ligament injuries: comparison between fibular tunnel and tibial tunnel techniques.

Authors:  Young-Bok Jung; Ho-Joong Jung; Sang Jun Kim; Se-Jin Park; Kwang-Sup Song; Yong Seuk Lee; Sang-Hak Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Brace or no-brace after ACL graft? Four-year results of a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Hermann O Mayr; Paul Stüeken; Ernst-Otto Münch; Morris Wolter; Anke Bernstein; Norbert P Suedkamp; Amelie Stoehr
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Rotational and translational laxity after computer-navigated single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  M Hofbauer; P Valentin; R Kdolsky; R C Ostermann; A Graf; M Figl; S Aldrian
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  A 2-year follow-up of rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon or hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective randomised outcome study.

Authors:  Annette Heijne; Suzanne Werner
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Retrospective comparison of four intra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using three evaluation systems.

Authors:  S W Wachtl; A Imhoff
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Comparison of augmented and non-augmented anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with high tibial osteotomy.

Authors:  G Stutz; A Boss; A Gächter
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Whole-Organ Arthroscopic Knee Score (WOAKS).

Authors:  Gunter Spahn; Thomas Mückley; Hans M Klinger; Gunther O Hofmann
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.