Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023
Gap balanced adjusted mechanical alignment versus measured resection mechanical alignment: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of medium to long-term outcomes.Musculoskeletal surgery · 2026Review
- Using sequential bone cutting to titrate soft tissue balance in total knee arthroplasty effectively minimizes soft tissue release.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlignment goals in total knee replacement (TKR) is a topical subject. This study compares the short-term functional outcomes and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of two philosophies for knee arthroplasty alignment: measured resection (MR) and an individualised alignment philosophy, with the tibia mechanically aligned and an instrumented gap balancer (GB) to align the femur in both flexion and extension. PATIENTS AND
methods94 knees were enrolled in this randomised controlled trial. The surgical protocol used a MR technique for mechanical alignment or a GB technique for individualised alignment. Primary outcome was quadriceps strength. Secondary outcomes included validated functional tests and PROMs as well as patient satisfaction. Outcomes were assessed pre-operatively, at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively.
resultsAt 12-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in the change from baseline mean quadriceps peak torque between the two groups (p = 0.988). Significant improvement in the change in range of motion (ROM) in the GB group compared to the MR group at 3 months (13° vs 6° p = 0.028) but this improvement was not significant at 1 year (20° vs 17° p = 0.21). The functional test of balance showed statistically significant improvement at 6 weeks (p = 0.03) in the GB group but this difference was not maintained. PROMs favoured the GB group, with the KOOS pain scoring statistically better (p ≤ 0.05) at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months.
conclusionsIndividualised alignment philosophy utilising a GB technique did not demonstrate an improvement in the primary outcome measure quadriceps peak torque. Improvement was seen in the GB group in PROM pain scores that was significant, both statistically and clinically, out to at least 1 year. Gains that were seen in functional assessment with GB, although significant at some time points, were no longer significant at 1 year and no difference was seen in quads strength. Compared to a MR technique, the individualised GB technique appears to confer some improvement in pain, ROM and some functional tests following TKR in the short-term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.