This study examined four commonly used sports knee evaluation instruments to establish normative data. A total of 91 volunteers who had not sought treatment for knee pain or any other knee complaint at any time in the past underwent a detailed medical history and examination of both of their knees. Three numerical systems (Feagin and Blake Knee Score, Lysholm Knee Score, and the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Disability Assessment) and one nonnumerical system (the International Knee Documentation Committee Quick Knee Profile) were evaluated. A significant difference in the proportion of knees with excellent/normal ratings was seen among the four evaluation systems (P<.0001): Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Disability Assessment, 99.5%; Feagin and Blake Knee Score, 84.6%; Lysholm Knee Score, 84.1%; and the International Knee Documentation Committee Quick Knee Profile, 50.5%. Results showed that three objective component scores for the International Knee Documentation Quick Knee Profile were significantly lower than all other component scores (P<.05). These components included: overall ligament examination, Lachman, and total AP translation. These data may be useful as a baseline by which investigators studying patients following knee reconstructive procedures have a basis for comparison of their results.
|Number of pages||10|
|Journal||The American journal of knee surgery|
|State||Published - Jan 1 1999|