Method | Correlation with clinical outcomes | |
---|---|---|
Kondo et al. [7] (Arthroscopy, 2007) | Graft maturation score for each bundle based on graft tension (0–2)* and integrity (0–2). Each bundle (AM, PL) with a total score of 4 was evaluated as excellent, 2 or 3 as fair, and 0 or 1 as poor. DB grafts were classified into categories I (two excellent bundles), II (only one excellent bundle), or III (no excellent bundle) | Category I showed significantly better results than categories II or III in KT-2000 and PST |
No significant differences between the three categories in all clinical outcomes. | ||
Ahn et al. [9] (Arthroscopy, 2015) | Graft maturation score based on integrity (0–3), tension (0–3), and synovial coverage with neo-vascularization (0–4). Total graft maturation scores ranged from 0 to 10 points | No comparison between second-look findings and objective outcomes, but remnant preserved group showed higher graft maturation score and better clinical outcomes |
Kondo et al. [17] (AJSM, 2015) | Graft maturation score and grade system by Kondo and Yasuda were used | No comparison between second-look findings and objective outcomes, but remnant preserved group showed better maturation grade and stability (KT-2000, PST) |
Lu et al. [18] (AJSM, 2015) | Graft maturation score based on synovial and vascular coverage, tension, integrity. A maximum of 2 points was assigned for each parameter. A graft with a total score of 5 or 6 was evaluated as excellent, 3 or 4 as fair, and ≤ 2 as poor | No comparison between second-look findings and objective clinical outcomes. But ACLR using the existing footprint remnant for tunnel placement showed higher graft maturation score and better functional results (ROM recovery, subjective outcome scores) |
Kim et al. [10] (KSSTA, 2017) | Total maturation score based on graft tension, integrity, and synovial coverage (modified from method by Ohsawa et al. [28]). According to the second-look finding, a maximum of 3 points was assigned for each parameter. Total scores ranged from 3 to 9 points | No comparison between total maturation score and clinical outcomes |
Kim et al. [11] (KSSTA, 2017) | Total maturation score based on graft tension, integrity, synovial coverage, and revascularization. According to the second-look finding, a maximum of 2 points was assigned for each parameter. Total scores ranged from 0 to 8 points | No comparison between total maturation score and clinical outcomes |
Matsushita et al. [12] (KSSTA, 2017) | Graft maturation grade and category system by Kondo and Yasuda [17] | No comparison between total maturation grade/category and clinical outcomes |