ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Optimizing uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty: the impact of preoperative planning and arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Personalized Tibial Component Placement in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Surgical Technique and Rationale.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the combination of preoperative planning software combined with arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) can help patients who underwent uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) recover the constitutional alignment of the lower limb, obtain a better prosthetic position, and achieve better early patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs).
methodsA total of 150 patients who underwent UKA (planning group: 50 patients using the preoperative planning software; conventional group: 100 patients using the conventional method) were included in the study. The aHKA was defined as 180° + mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) - mechanical distal lateral femoral angle (LDFA). All patients in the planning group underwent UKA according to the planning software with the planned lower limb alignment of aHKA. All patients were divided into three groups: constitutional alignment group (postoperative HKA (post-HKA): aHKA ± 2.0°); overcorrection group (post-HKA > aHKA + 2.0°); under-correction group (post-HKA < aHKA - 2.0°). Comparisons between the planning and conventional groups were conducted: (1) the proportion of post-HKA restored to constitutional alignment group; (2) the postoperative prosthesis position parameter based on the guideline of the Oxford group; (3) the American Knee Society scores (KSS) at six months after surgery.
resultsThe proportion of the constitutional alignment group in the planning group was higher than that in the conventional group (86% vs. 66%) (p = 0.033). There was no significant difference in postoperative prosthesis position parameters between the two groups. No significant difference was found between the KSS clinical score (91.02 ± 4.20 vs. 90.61 ± 4.24) and KSS functional score (86.10 ± 7.23 vs. 84.30 ± 6.82) in six months after surgery between the planning and conventional groups.
conclusionPatients who underwent UKA using preoperative planning software in combination with aHKA were able to recover a higher proportion of the constitutional alignment than those with the conventional method. In addition, the planning group could achieve similar postoperative prosthesis position and short-term PROMs compared to the conventional group. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.