Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38240728›Full record

ArticleSICOT-J2024

Short-term functional outcomes of robotic-assisted TKA are better with functional alignment compared to adjusted mechanical alignment.

Michaud Jeffrey, Philippe Marchand, Pascal Kouyoumdjian, Remy Coulomb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SICOT-J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Comparable clinical outcomes in functionally aligned computer-assisted and image-based robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Michaud JeffreyOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department, CHU Nîmes, University Montpellier 1, Nîmes, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France.ORCID 0009-0004-9841-5200
Philippe MarchandOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department, CHU Nîmes, University Montpellier 1, Nîmes, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France.
Pascal KouyoumdjianOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department, CHU Nîmes, University Montpellier 1, Nîmes, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France - Laboratory LMGC, CNRS UMR 5508, University of Montpellier II, 860 Rue de St - Priest, 34090 Montpellier, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0717-9600
Remy CoulombOrthopedic and Traumatology Surgery Department, CHU Nîmes, University Montpellier 1, Nîmes, Place du Professeur Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7967-9356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLigament balancing is essential to the functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The optimal method of alignment remains a controversial issue. The primary objective was to compare the clinical outcomes of TKA between functional and adjusted mechanical alignment techniques. The secondary objectives were to compare bone resection, robotic alignment, and radiological assessment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis was a retrospective case-control series comparing TKA performed with functional alignment (FA) and adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA). Sixty-four FA subjects were matched with 64 aMA controls. These two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), surgeon, and type of frontal deformity. Both surgical procedures were performed using the MAKO

resultsMean FJS were respectively 63.4 ± 25.1 [0-100] and 51.2 ± 31.8 [0-100] in FA versus aMA group (p = 0.034). Mean OKS were respectively 40.8 ± 6.3 [21-48] and 34.9 ± 11.8 [3-48] in FA versus aMA group (p = 0.027). Mean KSS were respectively 184.9 ± 17.0 [126-200] and 175.6 ± 23.1 [102-200] in FA versus aMA group (p = 0.02). The main residual symptom was "none" for 73.0% versus 57.8%, "instability" for 6.4% versus 21.9%, "Pain" for 19.1% versus 12.5%, and "effusion" for 1.6% and 7.8% respectively for FA and aMA group (p = 0.016). There were 4 complications in the FA group versus 5 in the aMA group (p > 0.999). Mean postoperative hip-knee-ankle (HKA) robotic assessment were respectively 177.3° ± 2.0 [172-180] and 178.2° ± 2.0 [173-180] for FA and aMA group (p = 0.018). The median difference between HKA robotic and HKA radiological was -3.0° (IQR = 3.0; p < 0.001).

conclusionWith greater residual deformity and without release, functional alignment showed a statistically significantly better short-term clinical outcome than adjusted mechanical alignment. This difference may not be clinically significant.

Indexed as

Adjusted mechanical alignmentFunctional alignmentLigament balancingMAKOTKA

Identifiers

PMID38240728
PMCPMC10798231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.