ArticleCureus2024
A Restriction Boundary-Based Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) Classification for Restricted Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distribution and changes in lower limb alignment using the coronal plane alignment of the knee classification system before and after total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Coronal plane alignment of the knee phenotypes and ankle joint coronal plane alignment patterns in Egyptian population.World journal of orthopedics · 2026Article
- Changes in coronal plane alignment of the knee classification do not significantly influence outcomes after restricted kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification was proposed as a means of understanding the knee phenotype in leg alignment and joint line obliquity (JLO). However, when it is adapted to restricted kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty (rKA-TKA), the boundaries of CPAK and those of rKA-TKA phenotype are different. We therefore reappraise the boundary between the CPAK classification and restriction protocol and propose a restriction boundary-based CPAK (Rb-CPAK). Methods Between May 2020 and March 2022, 143 knees in 95 patients underwent rKA at our institution and were included in this study. In Rb-CPAK, we set the following ranges: 6° varus to 3° valgus for arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA), 0° to 6° varus for the medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), 0° to 5° valgus for the lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), and 169° to 180° for JLO. The pre- and postoperative alignments were classified using the original CPAK and Rb-CPAK. Results There were significant differences in pre- and postoperative distributions between original CPAK and Rb-CPAK (p < 0.0001). Postoperative Rb-CPAK primarily led to neutral aHKA (116 of 143 knees), and decreased MPTA varus (pre: 83.9 ± 3.4, post: 87.0 ± 2.3, p < 0.0001) and stable LDFA values (pre: 88.7 ± 3.1, post: 88.5 ± 2.7, p = 0.4) were observed. Among cases with neutral JLO, 78 knees required MPTA or LDFA corrections. Postoperatively, 67 (64%) out of 119 knees categorized as neutral JLO fell within MPTA and LDFA ranges. Conclusion The Rb-CPAK modification more effectively outlined knees that required restriction, and the restriction was properly performed compared with the original CPAK. However, JLO does not effectively indicate if a knee requires restriction or not, and thus individual evaluation of LDFA and MPTA might be necessary.
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.