Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32953134›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2020

Clinical outcomes of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Mark Anthony Roussot, Georges Frederic Vles, Sam Oussedik

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark Anthony RoussotDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Georges Frederic VlesDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Sam OussedikDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although mechanical alignment (MA) has traditionally been considered the gold standard, the optimal alignment strategy for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is still debated.Kinematic alignment (KA) aims to restore native alignment by respecting the three axes of rotation of the knee and thereby producing knee motion more akin to the native knee.Designer surgeon case series and case control studies have demonstrated excellent subjective and objective clinical outcomes as well as survivorship for KA TKA with up to 10 years follow up, but these results have not been reproduced in high-quality randomized clinical trials.Gait analyses have demonstrated differences in parameters such as knee adduction, extension and external rotation moments, the relevance of which needs further evaluation.Objective improvements in soft tissue balance using KA have not been shown to result in improvements in patient-reported outcomes measures.Technologies that permit accurate reproduction of implant positioning and objective measurement of soft tissue balance, such as robotic-assisted TKA and compartmental pressure sensors, may play an important role in improving our understanding of the optimum alignment strategy and implant position. Cite this article:

Indexed as

alignmentclinical outcomekinematicmechanicaltotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID32953134
PMCPMC7484715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.