Table 5.
Follow-up details.
| Author | Year | Initial cohort | Years to clinical follow-up Mean (range) | Final clinical cohort | Clinical evaluation | Years to radiographic follow-up | Final radiographic cohort |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deehan | 2000 | 90 | 5 | 80 (89%) | IKDC grade Lysholm score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit Pain on kneeling (VAS) |
5 | 65 (72%) |
| Drogset | 2002 | 100 | 8 | 68 (68%) | Subjective patient assessment Lysholm score Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit |
8 | 68 (68%) |
| Hart | 2005 | 40 | 10 (9 – 13) | 31 (78%) | Lysholm score Tegner score |
10 (9 – 13) | 31 (78%) |
| Hanypsiak | 2008 | 54 | 12 | 44 (82%) | IKDC grade Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 |
12 | 44 (82%) |
| 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%) |
| Keays | 2007 | 62 | 6 | 56 (90%) | Cincinnati knee score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit |
6 | 56 (90%) |
| Lebel | 2008 | 154 | 11.6 (10 – 13) | 101 (66%) | IKDC grade Lachman/Pivot shift Extension deficit |
11.6 (10–13) | 101 (66%) |
| Liden | 2007 | 71 | 7.2 (5.7 – 9.5) | 68 (96%) | IKDC grade Lysholm score Tegner score Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit |
NA | NA |
| Matsumoto | 2006 | 80 | 7 (5 – 8.5) | 72 (90%) | IKDC grade KT-1000 Extension deficit |
7 (5 – 8.5) | 72 (90%) |
| O’Neill | 2001 | 225 | 8.5 (6 – 11) | 225 (100%) | IKDC grade KT-1000 |
8.5 (6 – 11) | 225 (100%) |
| Panni | 2001 | 141 | 6.7 (5.3 – 7.5) | 141 (100%) | IKDC grade Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit |
NA | NA |
| Roe | 2005 | 180 | 7 | 120 (67%) | IKDC grade Lysholm score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit |
7 | 104 (58%) |
| Ruiz | 2002 | 90 | 7 (5.4 – 9.5) | 30 (33%) | Lysholm score Tegner score Lachman/Pivot shift KT-1000 |
7 (5.4 – 9.5) | 30 (33%) |
| Sajovic | 2006 | 64 | 5 | 54 (85%) | IKDC grade Lysholm score KT-1000 Extension deficit Anterior knee pain |
5 | 54 (85%) |
| Shelbourne | 2009 | 1276 | 14 (10–24) | 920 (72%) | IKDC grade Cincinnati knee score Pivot shift KT-1000 Extension deficit |
14 (10 – 24) | 502 (39%) |
| Spindler | 2005 | 314 | 5.4 (5–7.1) | 217 (69%) | IKDC grade KOOS Lysholm score WOMAC SF-36 |
NA | NA |
| Wu | 2002 | 103 | 10.4 (9–13) | 64 (62%) | IKDC grade Lysholm score Tegner score Pivot shift/Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit |
10.4 (9–13) | 64 (62%) |
| Zaffagnini | 2006 | 50 | 5 | 50 (100%) | IKDC grade Tegner score Pivot shift/Lachman KT-1000 Extension deficit Anterior knee pain |
5 | 50 (100%) |
IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; VAS, visual analog scale; KOOS, knee osteoarthritis outcomes score; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities.