Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scoring the knee

  • Chapter
The Knee Joint

Abstract

The move toward evidence-based medicine has brought a new emphasis on the use of sound outcome measures to evaluate patients and the treatments provided to them. While the assessment of orthopaedic surgical procedures dates back to the origins of the field, the use of traditional measures of success following surgery, such as physical examination and radiographic criteria, is now considered only one component of a complete evaluation process. In the past three decades, outcome assessment following orthopaedic surgery has focused increasingly on the perspective of the patient, rather than the surgeon. However, the role of radiologic and physical exam parameters remains pivotal, and patient-oriented outcomes must be viewed as having a critical, though complimentary, role in analyzing the results of treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Relman AS (1988) Assessment and accountability: the third revolution in medical care. N Engl J Med 319(18):1220–1222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1989) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  3. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, et al. (2003) A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 56(8):730–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartko JJ (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 19(1):3–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12(4 Suppl):142S–58S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346(8982):1085–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bland JM, Altman DG (1990) A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coeffi cient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 20(5):337–340

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosner B (1995) Fundamentals of biostatistics. Toronto: Duxbury Press

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hoher J, Bach T, Munster A, et al. (1997) Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. Am J Sports Med 25(5):642–647

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright JG, Feinstein AR (1992) A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 45(11):1201–1218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L, Wainner RS, et al. (1998) Development of a patient-reported measure of function of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(8):1132–1145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Marx RG, Bombardier C, Hogg-Johnson S, Wright JG (1999) Clinimetric and psychometric strategies for development of a health measurement scale. J Clin Epidemiol 52(2):105–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C (1997) Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 50(1):79–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wright JG, Young NL (1997) A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50(3):239–246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkley A, Griffin S, McLintock H, Ng L (1998) The development and evaluation of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for shoulder instability. The Western Ontario shoulder instability index (WOSI). Am J Sports Med 26(6):764–772

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. L’Insalata JC, Warren RF, Cohen SB, et al. (1997) A selfadministered questionnaire for assessment of symptoms and function of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(5):738–748

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Martin DP, Engelberg R, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF (1997) Comparison of the musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire with the short form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index, and the sickness impact profi le health-status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(9):1323–1335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG (1990) Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 28(7):632–642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tanner SM, Dainty KN, Marx RG, Kirkley A (2007) Kneespecific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients? Am J Sports Med 35(9):1450–1458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bombardier C, Melfi CA, Paul J, et al. (1995) Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care 33(4 Suppl): AS131–AS144

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Davies AP (2002) Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee 9(4):261–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118(8):622–629

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K (1986) A patient-specific measure of change in maximal function. Arch Intern Med 146(7):1325–1329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K (1986) Can the sickness impact profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis 39(6):429–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr., Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31(3):247–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr., Rogers W, et al. (1992) The validity and relative precision of MOS short-and long form health status scales and dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the medical outcomes study. Med Care 30(5 Suppl): MS253–MS265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ware JEJ, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B (1993) SF-36 health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shapiro ET, Richmond JC, Rockett SE, et al. (1996) The use of a generic, patient-based health assessment (SF-36) for evaluation of patients with anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 24(2):196–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergner M, Rothman ML (1987) Health status measures: an overview and guide for selection. Annu Rev Public Health 8:191–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10(3):150–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gauffin H, Pettersson G, Tegner Y, Tropp H (1990) Function testing in patients with old rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Int J Sports Med 11(1):73–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Odensten M, Hamberg P, Nordin M, et al. (1985) Surgical or conservative treatment of the acutely torn anterior cruciate ligament. A randomized study with short-term follow-up observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:87–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roberts TS, Drez D, Jr., McCarthy W, Paine R (1991) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using freeze-dried, ethylene oxide-sterilized, bone-patellar tendon-bone allografts. Two year results in thirty-six patients. Am J Sports Med 19(1):35–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Briggs KK, Kocher MS, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR (2006) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity scale for patients with meniscal injury of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(4):698–705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, et al. (2004) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee scale for various chondral disorders of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(6):1139–1145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, et al. (2001) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(10):1459–1469

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Noyes FR, Matthews DS, Mooar PA, Grood ES (1983) The symptomatic anterior cruciate-deficient knee. Part II: The results of rehabilitation, activity modification, and counseling on functional disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(2):163–174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Noyes FR, Mooar PA, Matthews DS, Butler DL (1983) The symptomatic anterior cruciate-deficient knee. Part I: The long-term functional disability in athletically active individuals. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(2):154–162

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, McCloskey JW (1999) Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 27(4):402–416

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (1998) Scoring algorithms for the lower limb outcomes data collection instrument version 2.0

    Google Scholar 

  44. Williams GN, Taylor DC, Gangel TJ, (2000) Comparison of the single assessment numeric evaluation method and the Lysholm score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 373:184–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, et al. (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) — development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1(1):64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Mohtadi N (1998) Development and validation of the quality of life outcome measure (questionnaire) for chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. Am J Sports Med 26(3):350–359

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hefti F, Muller W (1993) Current state of evaluation of knee ligament lesions. The new IKDC knee evaluation form. Orthopade 22(6):351–362

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. (2001) Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 29(5):600–613

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Kocher MS, et al. (2006) International Knee Documentation Committee. The international knee documentation committee subjective knee evaluation form: Normative data. Am J Sports Med 34(1):128–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Ranawat CS, Shine JJ (1973) Duo-condylar total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 94:185–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J (1976) A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(6):754–765

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Bach CM, Nogler M, Steingruber IE, et al. (2002) Scoring systems in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 399:184–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Buss DD, Min R, Skyhar M, et al. (1995) Nonoperative treatment of acute anterior cruciate ligament injuries in a selected group of patients. Am J Sports Med 23(2):160–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Buss DD, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, et al. (1993) Arthroscopically assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with use of autogenous patellarligament grafts. Results after twenty-four to forty-two months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(9):1346–1355

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Plancher KD, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Hutton KS (1998) Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in patients who are at least forty years old. A long-term follow-up and outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80(2):184–197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, et al. (2000) The reliability of the american knee society score. Acta Orthop Scand 71(6):603–608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M, Gerard P (1987) Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Validation — value in comparison with other assessment tests. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 65:85–89

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Theiler R, Sangha O, Schaeren S, et al. (1999) Superior responsiveness of the pain and function sections of the Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) as compared to the Lequesnealgofunctional index in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 7(6):515–519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(1):63–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L (2000) Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 item knee score for use in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71(3):268–274

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Whitehouse SL, Blom AW, Taylor AH, et al. (2005) The Oxford knee score; problems and pitfalls. Knee 12(4):287–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Bellamy N (1995) Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol Suppl 43:49–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Bellamy N, Sothern RB, Campbell J (1990) Rhythmic variations in pain perception in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol 17(3):364–372

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Kirkley A, Webster-Bogaert S, Litchfield R, et al. (1999) The effect of bracing on varus gonarthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(4):539–548

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, et al. (2001) Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med 29(2):213–218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Daniel DM, Stone ML, Dobson BE, et al. (1994) Fate of the ACL-injured patient. A prospective outcome study. Am J Sports Med 22(5):632–644

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Noyes FR, Barber SD, Mooar LA (1989) A rationale for assessing sports activity levels and limitations in knee disorders. Clin Orthop Relat Res 246:238–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Seto JL, Orofino AS, Morrissey MC, et al. (1988) Assessment of quadriceps/hamstring strength, knee ligament stability, functional and sports activity levels five years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 16(2):170–180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Straub T, Hunter RE (1988) Acute anterior cruciate ligament repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 227:238–250

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Gobbi A, Francisco R (2006) Factors aff ecting return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring graft: a prospective clinical investigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(10):1021–1028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Mithoefer K, Williams RJ, 3rd, Warren RF, et al. (2006) High-impact athletics after knee articular cartilage repair: a prospective evaluation of the microfracture technique. Am J Sports Med 34(9):1413–1418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B, et al. (2005) Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. Use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(9):1985–1994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Halasi T, Kynsburg A, Tallay A, Berkes I (2004) Development of a new activity score for the evaluation of ankle instability. Am J Sports Med 32(4):899–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Brophy RH, Beauvais RL, Jones EC, et al. (2005) Measurement of shoulder activity level. Clin Orthop Relat Res 439:101–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) — validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8(6):439–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Wigler I, Neumann L, Yaron M (1999) Validation study of a Hebrew version of WOMAC in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Clin Rheumatol 18(5):402–405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Xie F, Li SC, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, et al. (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore, English and Chinese versions of the Oxford knee score (OKS) in knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(9):1019–1024

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Xie F, Thumboo J, Lo NN, et al. (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore, English and Chinese versions of the Lequesne algofunctional index of knee in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15(1):19–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. B. E. Heyworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. H. Brophy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. G. Marx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heyworth, B.E., Brophy, R.H., Marx, R.G. (2012). Scoring the knee. In: The Knee Joint. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-287-99353-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-287-99353-4_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-287-99352-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-287-99353-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation