ArticleSICOT-J2025
Evaluation of component alignment in total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional guides: a retrospective study.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate whether the use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) or conventional instrumentation (CI) is associated with superior implant positioning and knee alignment in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
methodsClinical data, pre- and post-operative knee X-rays of 95 patients, who underwent TKA with use of either patient-specific instrumentation (group PSI) or conventional intra-/extramedullary cutting guides (group CI) were retrospectively collected. Preoperative measurements of knee alignment were done by assessing the femorotibial axis, the lateral femoral distal angle, and the medial tibial proximal angle. Postoperative measurements of the mechanical TKA alignment were performed by assessing the relative position of components to the femur and tibia and the femorotibial axis angle. Only when all three parameters were within generally accepted limits was the postoperative radiological outcome considered optimal.
resultsPreoperative measurements and demographics were similar among the two groups. No statistically significant differences were found between postoperative radiographic findings in patients operated on with PSI or CI. A restoration of the femorotibial axis was achieved in 87.8% and 87.0% of patients treated with PSI and CI, respectively (p = 0.583). Coronal alignment of the femoral component was within acceptable limits in 97.6% and 94.4% (p = 0.631) of patients of the PSI and CI groups, respectively. The respective percentages for the tibial component were 85.3% and 83.3% (p = 0.510) of patients. An accurate coronal plane radiological outcome was achieved in 82.9% and 77.8% of patients treated with PSI and CI, respectively (p = 0.611) Conclusions: The use of PSI does not increase the accuracy of component positioning and leg axis restoration compared to CI in TKA in patients with mild deformity.
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.