ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
The association between surgeon grade and radiographic implant alignment following oxford unicompartmental knee replacement.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUnicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is a technically challenging operation. Component alignment can influence implant longevity and knee function post-operatively. This study aimed to investigate implant alignment following UKR performed by consultants compared to trainees.
methods100 Oxford UKRs performed by trainees and consultants were analysed. Two blinded surgeons independently assessed post-operative knee radiographs on four parameters: flexion/extension of femoral component, posterior slope of tibial component, and varus/valgus of femoral and tibial components. Logistic regression was performed to predict the probability of implant malpositioning outside the optimal position range.
resultsMedian varus/valgus angles for femoral components did not differ significantly between trainees and consultants (p = 0.92), nor did the angles for tibial components (p = 0.43). Posterior tibial slope measurements showed a significant difference between trainees and consultants (7.08° [IQR 5.2-9.30], and 5.35° [IQR 2.65-7.05], respectively; p < 0.01). Median flexion/extension angles for femoral components also differed significantly between trainees and consultants (-14.45° [IQR -19.2 to -9.85] and -10.2°[IQR -13.55 to -6.95], respectively; p < 0.01). A greater proportion of implants positioned by trainees were classified as outliers for this parameter (46% versus 20%, p < 0.01; aOR 5.39, 95% CI 2.05-14.18, p < 0.01). However, no differences in the proportion of outliers was found when trainees were directly supervised by consultants (p = 0.73).
conclusionsTrainees achieved adequate component alignment within optimal ranges for most parameters however were more prone to positioning the femoral component in excessive flexion. Greater emphasis on achieving optimal flexion/extension positioning of the femoral component during surgical training and direct supervision may improve the outcomes of patients undergoing an Oxford UKR by trainees.
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.