ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Coronal plane alignment of the knee classification in patients with osteoarthritis and the clinical outcomes of its alteration in total knee arthroplasty: a cross-sectional analysis of a Chinese cohort.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2025. 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.
- Influence of total knee arthroplasty on coronal plane phenotypes and associated clinical outcomes: a CPAK-based comparison between mechanical and functional alignment.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- [Impact of coronal plane alignment of knee phenotype alteration on short-term effectiveness in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Deep Learning-Based Full-Process Automatic CPAK Classification System and Its Application in the Analysis of Alignment Outcomes Before and After Knee Arthroplasty.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe optimal coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains debatable, necessitating a clear, simple, and universal classification system. The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification introduced in 2021 provides a nuanced method for categorizing knee alignment. This study aimed to evaluate the distribution of CPAK types among Chinese patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and clarify the differences in surgical outcomes among different CPAK types.
methodsWe analyzed the data from 961 patients with OA. All patient information was derived from a single-centre retrospective cohort. Radiological measurements from full-length radiographs were used to classify patients into CPAK types. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes among different CPAK types. Demographic and clinical data, information regarding patient satisfaction, and Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) scores were also collected.
resultsAmong Chinese patients with OA, the most common type was Type I (56.8%), followed by Type II (16.1%). After TKA, CPAK types IV and V, were predominant, accounting for 28% and 31% of patients; CPAK types did not change with OA progression. No significant differences in satisfaction, KSS, or WOMAC scores were observed among patients with CPAK types IV, V, and VII. However, Type V patients had significantly higher FJS scores, potentially due to corrected preoperative varus alignment.
conclusionThis study established the CPAK type distribution among Chinese patients with OA to guide alignment strategies for TKA. Different CPAK types did not significantly affect overall satisfaction but influenced functional recovery, underscoring the need for personalized TKA approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40009175What 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.