International Knee Documentation Committee Knee Survey Use After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2005-2012 Systematic Review and World Region Comparison

PurposeThe purpose of this review was to evaluate International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey use after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with other surveys and determine evidence levels and methodologic study quality by world region.MethodsThe Medline database was searched from January 2005 through December 2012.ResultsWe identified 421 studies and 33 surveys. Europe and Australia had more objective and subjective IKDC form use (χ2 = 9.6, P = .047). Europe and Asia had more objective IKDC form use (χ2 = 19.4, P = .001). Asia had more Lysholm knee scale use (χ2 = 29.9, P < .0001). Europe had more Tegner Activity Level scale (χ2 = 31.7, P < .0001) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (χ2 = 20.5, P < .0001) use. North America and Australia had more Cincinnati or Noyes knee rating scale use (χ2 = 21, P < .0001). Asia and Australia had more studies with greater than 60 subjects (χ2 = 24.4, P = .018). Europe had more studies with greater than 24 months' follow-up (χ2 = 18.4, P = .018). Asia had more studies with adequate surgical descriptions (χ2 = 33.2, P < .0001). North America had more studies with well-described rehabilitation (χ2 = 18.2, P = .02). Europe had more studies with confirmed recruitment (χ2 = 12.9, P = .012). Australia and North America had more studies with confirmed independent investigators (χ2 = 11.1, P = .026). Europe had more studies with greater than 80% recruitment (χ2 = 16.0, P = .04). Methodologically stronger studies used the objective IKDC survey (P < .0001), the objective and subjective IKDC survey (P = .002), or the Cincinnati or Noyes scale (P = .002). This group also made greater use of the Tegner scale (P = .013).ConclusionsObjective and subjective IKDC form use is comparable with Lysholm and Tegner scale use. Objective and subjective IKDC form use in combination with the Tegner Activity Level scale is recommended.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.