International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Survey Use After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2005-2012 Systematic Review and World Region Comparison

After revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, who returns to sport? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The secondary outcomes relative to the final follow-up were the objective IKDC15 16 classification, knee laxity measured as side-to-side difference at the manual maximum displacement test measured in mm with KT-1000 or KT-2000 and results of the pivot-shift test. The percentage of participants with knee classified as category A (normal knee), B (nearly normal knee), C (abnormal knee) or D (severely abnormal knee) according to the IKDC form was calculated.…”

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction–rehabilitation research methodological quality: a systematic review with world region comparisons

“…Greater detail regarding these important points will enable the clinician who is trying to identify evidence to improve patient care to better determine the true significance and validity of study findings. As expected, based on a previous investigation, the Lysholm Knee Scale, Tegner Activity Level Scale, IKDC Objective Form, IKDC Subjective Form, and Cincinnati Knee Rating System were widely used [14]. Greater VAS-Pain Scale use supports the diversity of rehabilitation approaches, study methodologies, and stated purposes regarding the rehabilitation components of these combined ACL reconstruction-rehabilitation research studies.…”

“…A total of 109 studies underwent research methodological quality scoring using the MCMS criteria [7] (Appendix I in Supplementary Material). Reliability [13] and validity [1,7,14] have been previously demonstrated for these criteria. Wera et al [14] reported that ACL reconstruction surgical studies with higher evidence levels displayed superior MCMS supporting the validity of these criteria for this patient group.…”

“…Reliability [13] and validity [1,7,14] have been previously demonstrated for these criteria. Wera et al [14] reported that ACL reconstruction surgical studies with higher evidence levels displayed superior MCMS supporting the validity of these criteria for this patient group. Scoring was initially performed by the primary investigator (AP) and two co-authors (PM, JG).…”

“…Specific MCMS components that displayed significant world region differences included use of an independent investigator (Europe > North America and Asia; P = 0.047), including a patient-completed [7] has been previously used as a component of ACL reconstruction research focusing on graft type [3], bone-patellar tendon-bone graft defect closure [4], hamstring tendon regeneration post-harvest [8], surgical management following partial ACL injury [9], the influence of gender on knee laxity following ACL reconstruction with either a hamstring or a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft [10], and the efficacy of retaining the ACL remnant during reconstruction [12]. Recently, Wera et al [14] identified world region differences for International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Survey use following ACL reconstruction; however, this study did not require the combination of ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation as a study inclusion criteria factor. Based on these previous reports, the purpose of this systematic review of studies that combined both ACL reconstruction surgery and rehabilitation was to evaluate world region research methodological quality differences.…”