ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Alignment and early clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty using a handheld navigation system compared to conventional instruments.
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
introductionProper lower extremity alignment is important for success and longevity of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Conventional instrumentation has demonstrated higher rates of mechanical axis (MA) malalignment compared to robotic or computer navigated surgery. The purpose of this study is to compare the alignment and early clinical outcomes between a handheld implant agnostic navigation system and conventional instrumentation.
methods117 patients who underwent single-stage bilateral TKA were prospectively studied. The distal femoral and proximal tibial resections were performed using a handheld navigation system (HHNS) on one knee and conventional instrumentation on the other knee. Implant positioning and lower extremity alignment were compared. Knee society knee score (KSKS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOS JR), patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global physical health (GPH), and patient satisfaction were compared up to one year postoperatively.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in the mean values between knees performed using HHNS compared to conventional instruments for MA (0.71° vs. - 0.32°, p = 0.0086), tibial slope (1.17° vs. 0.61°, p = 0.0165), and AP tibial component angle (0.52° vs 0.03°, p = 0.0149). No significant difference in AP femoral component position (5.65° vs. 5.60°, p = 0.87) was found. The HHNS resulted in a higher proportion of knees achieving targeted alignment for each measurement reviewed by 3-9%. Tourniquet time was approximately 6 min longer for the HHNS compared to conventional instruments (p < 0.0005). No significant difference was found for KSKS, KOOS JR, PROMIS GPH, and patient satisfaction at 1 year following surgery.
conclusionTKA performed with a HHNS did not result in any clinical or statistically meaningful differences regarding alignment or patient reported outcomes when compared to conventional instruments. However, a larger proportion of patients achieved surgical alignment targets for all measurements considered with use of the HHNS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40892157What 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.