Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39460613›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

High variability exists in 3D leg alignment analysis, but underlying principles that might lead to agreement on a universal framework could be identified: A systematic review.

Quinten W T Veerman, Romy M Ten Heggeler, Gabriëlle J M Tuijthof, Feike de Graaff, René Fluit, Roy A G Hoogeslag

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. A structured framework for standardized 3D leg alignment analysis: An international Delphi consensus study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Quinten W T VeermanOCON Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Hengelo, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2774-6246
Romy M Ten HeggelerOCON Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Hengelo, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8759-5515
Gabriëlle J M TuijthofFaculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4372-6584
Feike de GraaffOCON Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Hengelo, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-7316
René FluitFaculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2450-7071
Roy A G HoogeslagOCON Centre for Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Hengelo, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1588-086X

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo (1) investigate the hypothesis that there is high variability in the reported methods to derive axes and joint orientations from three-dimensional (3D) bone models to (a) perform 3D knee-related leg alignment analysis and (b) define coordinate systems for the femur, tibia and leg and (2) identify underlying principles that might lead to agreement on a universal 3D leg alignment analysis framework.

methodsA systematic review of the literature between January 2006 and June 2024 was performed. Articles explicitly reporting methods to derive axes and joint orientations from CT-based 3D bone models for alignment parameters and/or coordinate systems of the femur, tibia and leg were included. Study characteristics and reported methods were extracted and presented as a qualitative synthesis.

resultsA total of 93 studies were included. There was high variability in the reported methods to derive axes and joint orientations from 3D bone models. Nevertheless, the reported methods could be categorized into four groups, and several underlying principles of the four groups could be identified. Furthermore, the definitions of femoral and tibial coordinate systems were most frequently based on the mechanical axis (femoral, 13/19 [68%]; tibial, 13/26 [50%]) and a central medial-lateral axis (femoral, 16/19 [84%]; tibial, 12/26 [46%]); no leg coordinate system was reported. Interestingly, of the included studies that reported on leg alignment parameters (76/93, 82%), only a minority reported expressing these in a complete coordinate system (25/76, 33%).

conclusionThere is high variability in 3D knee-related leg alignment analysis. Therefore, universal 3D reference values for alignment parameters cannot yet be defined, and comparison of alignment parameter values between different studies is impossible. However, several underlying principles to the reported methods were identified, which could serve to reach more agreement on a future universal 3D framework for leg alignment analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Indexed as

FemurImaging, Three-DimensionalKnee JointLegTibiaHumansTomography, X-Ray Computedalignment parameterscoordinate systemskneeosteotomyTKA

Identifiers

PMID39460613
PMCPMC12104779

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.