Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knee Scoring Systems

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
European Surgical Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Abstract

The possibility of measuring clinical outcome after a knee procedure, either conservative or surgical, is of fundamental importance for the Orthopaedic practitioner. Since the goal of every Orthopaedic treatment is to re-establish functional status, it is important to assess clinical outcome not only by objective findings but also by taking into account the patient's point of view and his own evaluation of the functional trend of the treated joint. To this purpose several different evaluation tools have been developed over years: some of them are more general whereas others are more disease-linked. In this chapter we analyze the features of the most used knee scoring systems in clinical practice, trying to focus on how to correctly use them according to the needs of the surgeon and the specific pathology considered. In particular we focus on the following scoring systems: AKSS, Cincinnati, HSS, IKDC-subjective, KOOS, Kujala, Lysholm, OKS, SF-36, WOMAC and Tegner. A proper knowledge of these tools could be useful both for clinical and scientific purpose: in fact these instruments can be applied by surgeons to perform a better follow-up evaluation of their patients but also to compare results among clinical trials.

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 649.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 949.99
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

References

  1. Wright RW. Knee injury outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:31–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beaton DE, Schemitsch E. Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:90–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs K, Zurakowski D, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Determinants of patient satisfaction with outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1560–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Spindler KP, Warren TA, Callison Jr JC, Secic M, Fleisch SB, Wright RW. Clinical outcome at a minimum of five years after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1673–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zarins B. Are validated questionnaires valid? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(1671):1672.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Heckman JD. Are validated questionnaires valid? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:446.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Risberg MA, Holm I, Steen H, Beynnon BD. Sensitivity to changes over time for the IKDC form, the Lysholm score, and the Cincinnati knee score: a prospective study of 120 ACL reconstructed patients with a 2-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:152–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sernert N, Kartus J, Köhler K, et al. Analysis of subjective, objective and functional examination tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a follow-up of 527 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;7:160–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eastlack ME, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Laxity, instability, and functional outcome after ACL injury: copers versus noncopers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999;31:210–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Neeb TB, Aufdemkampe G, Wagener JH, Mastenbroek L. Assessing anterior cruciate ligament injuries: the association and differential value of questionnaires, clinical tests, and functional tests. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1997;26:324–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(2):159–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bennell K, Bartam S, Crossley K, Green S. Outcome measures in patellofemoral pain syndrome: test retest reliability and inter-relationships. Phys Ther Sport. 2000;1(2):32–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harrison E, Magee D, Quinney H. Development of a clinical tool and patient questionnaire for evaluation of patellofemoral pain syndrome patients. Clin J Sport Med. 1996;6(3):163–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Paxton EW, Fithian DC, Stone ML, Silva P. The reliability and validity of knee-specific and general health instruments in assessing acute patellar dislocation outcomes. Am J Sports Med. 2003;31(4):487–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Timm KE. Randomized controlled trial of Protonics on patellar pain, position, and function. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):665–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Crossley KM, Bennell KL, Cowan SM, Green S. Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain which are reliable and valid? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(5):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Watson CJ, Propps M, Ratner J, Zeigler DL, Horton P, Smith SS. Realiability and responsiveness of the lower extremity functional scale and the anterior knee pain scale in patients with anterior knee pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(3):136–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989;18(4 suppl 2):14–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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. 1988;15:1833–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hawker G, Melfi C, Paul J, Green R, Bombardier C. Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and Mc-Master Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol. 1995;22:1193–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ryser L, Wright BD, Aeschlimann A, Mariacher-Gehler S, Stucki G. A new look at the Western Ontario and Mc-Master Universities Osteoarthritis Index using Rasch analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 1999;12:331–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wolfe F, Kong SX. Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58:563–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:384–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Angst F, Ewert T, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. The factor subdimensions of theWestern Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) help to specify hip and knee osteoarthritis: a prospective evaluation and validation study. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1324–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Stevens J, Pilch L, Stewart C, Mahmood Z. Validation study of a computerized version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities VA3.0 Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:2413–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Hill J, Band P. A comparative study of telephone versus onsite completion of the WOMAC 3.0 Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:783–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, Bellamy N, Huber J, Kroesen S. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:479–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 Osteoarthritis Index. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:80–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roos EM, Klässbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index: reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28:210–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bae SC, Lee HS, Yun HR, Kim TH, Yoo DH, Kim SY. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and Lequesne osteoarthritis indices for clinical research. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:746–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bellamy N. WOMAC:A20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:2473–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkárate J, Güenaga JI. Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol. 2002;21:466–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hashimoto H, Hanyu T, Sledge CB, Lingard EA. Validation of a Japanese patient-derived outcome scale for assessing total knee arthroplasty: comparison with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). J Orthop Sci. 2003;8:288–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Salaffi F, Leardini G, Canesi B, et al. Reliability and validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2003;11:551–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Guermazi M, Poiraudeau S, Yahia M, et al. Translation, adaptation and validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for an Arab population: the Sfax modified WOMAC. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:459–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index: additional dimensions for use in subjects with post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Western Ontario and Mac-Master Universities. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1999;7:216–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Baron G, Tubach F, Ravaud P, Logeart I, Dougados M. Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and Mc-Master Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:633–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ware Jr JE. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-formhealth survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17:13–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992;30:917–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Weinberger M, Samsa GP, Hanlon JT, et al. An evaluation of a brief health status measure in elderly veterans. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:691–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T. The 36-item short form. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15:126–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McHorney CA, Ware Jr JE, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Perneger TV, Leplège A, Etter JF, Rougemont A. Validation of a French language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adults. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1051–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jenkinson C, Wright L, Coulter A. Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:7–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lyons RA, Perry HM, Littlepage BN. Evidence for the validity of the shortform 36 questionnaire (SF-36) in an elderly population. Age Ageing. 1994;23:182–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Németh G. Health related quality of life outcome instruments. Eur Spine J. 2006;15 suppl 1:S44–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hayes V, Morris J, Wolfe C, Morgan M. The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: is it suitable for use with older adults? Age Ageing. 1995;24:120–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware Jr JE. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey: I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1349–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Keller SD, Ware Jr JE, Hatoum HT, Kong SX. The SF-36 Arthritis-Specific Health Index (ASHI): II. Tests of validity in four clinical trials. Med Care. 1999;37(5 suppl):MS51–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kosinski M, Keller SD, Hatoum HT, Kong SX, Ware Jr JE. The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care. 1999;37(5 Suppl):MS10–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ryd L, Lohmander LS. Substantial disability 3 months after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: a prospective study of patient relevant outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:619–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Paxton EW, Fithian DC. Outcome instruments for patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:66–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Vangsness Jr CT, Mac P, Requa R, Garrick J. Review of outcome instruments for evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1995;54:25–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28:88–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8:439–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Englund M, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Impact of type of meniscal tear on radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a sixteen-year follow-up of meniscectomy with matched controls. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:2178–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Roos EM, Ostenberg A, Roos H, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Long-term outcome of meniscectomy: symptoms, function, and performance tests in patients with or without radiographic osteoarthritis compared to matched controls. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:316–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. W-Dahl A, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM. A 2-year prospective study of patient-relevant outcomes in patients operated on for knee osteoarthritis with tibial osteotomy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:18.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:17.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Xie F, Li SC, Roos EM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2006;14:1098–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Paradowski PT, Bergman S, Sundén-Lundius A, Lohmander LS, Roos EM. Knee complaints vary with age and gender in the adult population: population-based reference data for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:38.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10:150–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lukianov AV, Gillquist J, Grana WA, DeHaven KE. An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) evaluation format for assessment of artificial or autologous anterior cruciate reconstruction results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;218:167–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Höher J, Münster A, Klein J, Eypasch E, Tiling T. Validation and application of a subjective knee questionnaire. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1995;3:26–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH. Use of the International Knee Documentation Committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1998;6:107–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bengtsson J, Möllborg J, Werner S. A study for testing the sensitivity and reliability of the Lysholm knee scoring scale. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1996;4:27–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, et al. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1459–69.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee scale for various chondral disorders of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1139–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Briggs KK, Kocher MS, Rodkey WG, Steadman JR. 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. 2006;88:698–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Bollen S, Seedhom BB. A comparison of the Lysholm and Cincinnati knee scoring questionnaires. Am J Sports Med. 1991;19:189–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Sgaglione NA, Del Pizzo W, Fox JM, Friedman MJ. Critical analysis of knee ligament rating systems. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23:660–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Noyes FR, McGinniss GH, Mooar LA. Functional disability in the anterior cruciate insufficient knee syndrome: review of knee rating systems and projected risk factors in determining treatment. Sports Med. 1984;1:278–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Noyes FR, Matthews DS, Mooar PA, Grood ES. The symptomatic anterior cruciate-deficient knee: part II. The results of rehabilitation, activity modification, and counseling on functional disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65:163–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, Mc-Closkey JW. 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. 1999;27:402–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Roos E. Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati Knee Rating System in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:436–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Risberg MA, Holm I, Tjomsland O, Ljunggren E, Ekeland A. Prospective study of changes in impairments and disabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1999;29:400–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Ott SM, Ireland ML, Ballantyne BT, Willson JD. McClay Davis IS: comparison of outcomes between males and females after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003;11:75–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Rossi MJ, Lubowitz JH, Guttmann D. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30:152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Padua R, Bondi R, Ceccarelli E, et al. Italian version of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. Arthroscopy. 2004;20:819–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, Breugem SJ, Lohuis K, Blankevoort L, van Dijk CN. Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1680–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:1567–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF. Development and validation of health-related quality of life measures for the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;402:95–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:213–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Ranawat CS, Insall J, Shine J. Duo-condylar knee arthroplasty: hospital for special surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Oct;120:76–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Drake B, Callahan C, Dittus R, et al. Global rating systems used in assessing knee arthroplasty outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:409–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Binazzi R, Soudry M, Mestriner LA, et al. Knee arthroplasty rating. J Arthroplasty. 1992;7:145–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Barck AL. Measurement of clinical change caused by knee replacement. Conventional score or special change indexes? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119(1–2):76–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop. 1989;248:13–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. The reliability of the American Knee Society Score. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71–6:603–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80-B:63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(8):1010–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Orthopaedic and Sports Traumatology, Biomechanics Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna University, V. Di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    Elizaveta Kon, Giulio Altadonna, Giuseppe Filardo, Berardo Di Matteo & Maurilio Marcacci

Authors
  1. Elizaveta Kon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulio Altadonna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuseppe Filardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Berardo Di Matteo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maurilio Marcacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizaveta Kon .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, United Kingdom

    George Bentley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 EFORT

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kon, E., Altadonna, G., Filardo, G., Matteo, B.D., Marcacci, M. (2014). Knee Scoring Systems. In: Bentley, G. (eds) European Surgical Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34746-7_120

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34746-7_120

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34745-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34746-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation