Skip to main content

Table 4 Clinical evaluation outcomesa

From: Posterior cruciate ligament repair seems safe with low failure rates but more high level evidence is needed: a systematic review

Author

Lysholm

IKDC (%)

Tegner

KOOS

VAS

Posterior knee translation

 

Side to side difference

Pre-injury

Post-injury

Pain

Sym

ADL

QoL

Sports

Pain

Satisfaction

PDTc

Stress radiograph

KT arthrometer

Open PCL repair

 Heitmann et al

81, SD ± 15.5

75.5, SD ± 14.5

6 (3–8)b

5 (1–7)b

        

2.9 mm, SD ± 2.1

 

 Hua et al

87.5, SD ± 7.7 (71–95)

 

5.59, SD ± 1.4 (3–9)

3.35, SD ± 1.7 (1–6)

     

2.43, SD ± 0.89 (1–4.5)

7.98, SD ± 1.12 (5.1–9.2)

  

0.8 mm, SD ± 0.4 (0.1 – 1.2)

 Kohl et al

90.8 (81–95)

 

6.9 (5–10)

4.8 (3–9)

      

8.7 (5–10)

  

2.5 mm

 Owens et al

89 (68–100)

 

5.6 (3–10)

4.4 (1–9)

          

 Shirakura et al

              

Arthroscopic PCL repair

 Hopper et al

    

87

75.5

93

54.2

69.6

0.8

    

 Otto et al

69.1, SD ± 16.6

68.9, SD ± 18.1

 

4b

        

5.5 mm, SD ± 4.1

 

 Vermeijden et al

              

 Wheatley et al

95.4 (90–100)

          

5 Neg. 6 Grade 1

2.6 mm (0–6)

 
  1. Sym Symptoms, ADL daily living activities, QoL Quality of Life, PDT Posterior drawer test
  2. aData are presented as Mean, ± Standard Deviation and Range for studies reporting these measures
  3. bData reported as Median
  4. cPDT, Posterior drawer test; Neg, negative: 0-5 mm, Grade 1: 5-10 mm, Grade 2: > 10 mm