The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Relationships between Objective Assessment of Ligament Stability and Subjective Assessment of Symptoms and Function after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Abstract
Background: Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction have not been established. Hypothesis: Relationships exist between objective and subjective assessments after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Study Design: Case series. Methods: Patients (N = 202) undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with 2-year minimum follow-up were studied. Objective variables of ligament stability at follow-up included instrumented laxity, Lachman examination, and pivot-shift examination. Subjective variables of symptoms at follow-up included pain, swelling, giving way, locking, crepitus, stiffness, and limping. Subjective function at follow-up included walking, squatting, stair climbing, running, cutting, jumping, twisting, activity limitation, sports level, activities of daily living level, work level, knee function, sports participation, Lysholm score, and satisfaction withoutcome. Results: Instrumented knee laxity and Lachman examination had no significant (P> .05) relationships with any subjective variables of symptoms and function. Pivot-shift examination had significant associations with satisfaction (P= .03), partial giving way (P= .01), full giving way (P= .01), difficulty cutting (P= .01), difficulty twisting (P= .01), activity limitation (P= .01), overall knee function (P= .03), sports participation (P= .02), and Lysholm score (P= .01). Conclusions: The pivot-shift examination may be a better measure of “functional instability” than instrumented knee laxity or Lachman examination after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ardern, C. L., Webster, K. E., Taylor, N. F., & Feller, J. A. (2011) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.076364 · Cited by 1,383
Renstrom, P., Ljungqvist, A., Arendt, E., Beynnon, B., Fukubayashi, T., Garrett, W., Georgoulis, T., Hewett, T. E., Johnson, R., Krosshaug, T., et al. (2008) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.048934 · Cited by 820
Ardern, C. L., Österberg, A., Tagesson, S., Gauffin, H., Webster, K. E., & Kvist, J. (2014) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-093842 · Cited by 489
Lynch, A. D., Logerstedt, D. S., Grindem, H., Eitzen, I., Hicks, G. E., Axe, M. J., Engebretsen, L., Risberg, M. A., & Snyder-Mackler, L. (2015) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-092299 · Cited by 348
Amis, A. A. (2012) · Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy · doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1864-7 · Cited by 143
Metadata
- Authors
- Kocher, M. S., Steadman, J. R., Briggs, K. K., Sterett, W. I., & Hawkins, R. J.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 629-634
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- OpenAlex
- W2127719173
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Relationships between Objective Assessment of Ligament Stability and Subjective Assessment of Symptoms and Function after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0363546503261722
- The paper
- Kocher, M. S., Steadman, J. R., Briggs, K. K., Sterett, W. I., & Hawkins, R. J. (2004). Relationships between Objective Assessment of Ligament Stability and Subjective Assessment of Symptoms and Function after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546503261722
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.