Table 3.
Follow-up and Quality Scores
| Author | Year | Initial Cohort | Years to Clinical Follow-up Mean (range) | Final Clinical Cohort | Clinical Evaluation | Years to Radiographic Follow-up | Final Radiographic Cohort | Modified Coleman Methodology Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ibrahim | 2005 | 110 | 6.8 (5–8) | 85 (77%) | Subjective Patient Satisfaction Lysholm Score Tegner Score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit |
6.8 (5–8) | 85 (77%) | 66 |
| Keays | 2007 | 62 | 6 | 56 (90%) | Cincinnati knee score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit |
6 | 56 (90%) | 68 |
| Liden | 2007 | 71 | 7.2 (5.7–9.5) | 68 (96%) | IKDC Grade - overall Lysholm Score Tegner Score Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit |
NA | NA | 70 |
| O’Neill | 2001 | 225 | 8.5 (6–11) | 225 (100%) | IKDC Grade - overall KT-1000 |
8.5 (6–11) | 225 (100%) | 76 |
| Roe | 2005 | 180 | 7 | 120 (67%) | IKDC Grade - overall Lysholm Score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit |
7 | 104 (58%) | 78 |
| Sajovic | 2006 | 64 | 5 | 54 (85%) | IKDC Grade - overall Lysholm Score KT-1000 Extension deficit Anterior knee pain |
5 | 54 (85%) | 71 |
| Zaffagnini | 2006 | 50 | 5 | 50 (100%) | IKDC - Subjective IKDC Grade - overall Tegner Score Pivot shift/Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit Anterior knee pain |
5 | 50 (100%) | 75 |