ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2024
Knee phenotypes distribution according to CPAK classification in Turkish population.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) in children and adolescents : an analysis of 655 knees according to the CPAK classification.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Sex-specific differences in coronal knee alignment and CPAK distribution in an Austrian population.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Phenotyping the knee joint-A critical appraisal of CPAK for alignment classification.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the distribution of knee phenotypes based on the CPAK classification in healthy nonarthritic subjects and osteoarthritic patients in Türkiye. Methods: Radiological EOS analysis of nonarthritic 1172 knees and osteoarthritic 571 knees was evaluated to clarify the distribution of CPAK classification. The knees were categorized into 9 subgroups according to the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle (aHKA) angle and joint-line obliquity (JLO). The medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) were used to calculate aHKA and JLO. The Sectra workstation program was used for all radiological measurements. Results: In the nonarthritic group, CPAK distribution was 20.9% type I (n=245), 2.5% type II (n=30), 0.08% type III (n=1), 46.67% type IV (n=545), 7.7% type V (n=91), 0.7% type VI (n=9), 18% type VII (n=211), 2.9% type VIII (n=35), 0.2% type IX (n=3). The mean JLO was 173.7 ± 4.38, and the mean aHKA was 0.15 ± 3.81 in nonarthritic group. Arthritic group CPAK type distribution was 20.7% type I (n=118), 3.1% type II (n=18), 0.17% type III (n=1), 57.1% type IV (n=326), 8.4% type V (n=48), 0.17% type VI (n=1), 7.8% type VII (n=45), 1.4% type VIII (n=8), and 0.8% type IX (n=5). The mean JLO was 174.2 ± 3.78, and the mean aHKA was !2.21 ± 4.48 in the osteoarthritic group. Conclusion: CPAK type IV and CPAK type I were the most common subgroups in the nonarthritic and arthritic groups. CPAK type 5, which is the target of the mechanical alignment strategy, is only 7.8% in the nonarthritic group and 8.4% in the osteoarthritic group in the Turkish population. Level of Evidence: Level III, Diagnostic Study.
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.