ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Proposing a precision-enhancing method for sagittal plane alignment during total knee arthroplasty.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAchieving appropriate alignment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is crucial for long-term survival of implant but alignment in sagittal plane is relatively not well studied. The purpose of this study was to (1) propose the preoperative sagittal planning method of TKA using X-ray, (2) validate its accuracy and (3) find factors contributing to inaccurate sagittal placement of the component.
methodsNinety-three knees of 71 patients were prospectively reviewed. Preoperative sagittal planning for the femoral and tibial component was conducted using simple X-ray images. The postoperative X-ray taken six weeks after surgery was used to validate the proposed method. The angle between the reference line and the expected resection line before surgery was defined as the preoperative gamma angle for the femur and delta angle for the tibia. Postoperatively, the angle between the same reference line and the actual component was defined as the postoperative gamma and delta angles, respectively. The target angle range for the difference between the preoperative and postoperative gamma and delta angles was set as -2° to 2°. Demographic and radiologic factors between groups that fell within and outside the target angle range were compared.
resultsTotal 75 cases (80.6%) met the target angle range of distal femur resection. Femoral component tended to be placed in more flexed position than planned. Anterior femoral notching was not observed in all cases. Total 89 cases (95.7%) met the target angle range of proximal tibia resection. No factors were associated with the increased difference in preoperative and postoperative femoral and tibial prosthesis placement in multiple regression.
conclusionsThe proposed sagittal planning method for TKA demonstrated an accuracy of 80.6% for the femoral component and 95.7% for the tibial component. Since this method does not require any programs and additional costs, it could be a good alternative in situations where robotic-assisted TKA is not available.
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.