ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Biomechanical analysis of surgical alignment and design in total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe design of TKA implants is defined by manufacturers according to a specific alignment philosophy; however, in-vivo performance strongly depends on the surgeon’s decisions regarding component position, orientation, and soft tissue management. Mechanical Alignment (MA) and Kinematic Alignment (KA) are the most widely used strategies. Several studies have compared their clinical outcomes, but no definitive conclusions exist, and long-term multicentric follow-ups are lacking. Surgeons sometimes select the surgical alignment independently of the implant’s design rationale, meaning components designed for MA may be implanted following KA, potentially affecting outcomes and complicating interpretation. The aim of this study is therefore to compare different alignment philosophies in various TKA designs using a validated finite element model. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour implanted knee configurations were obtained by modifying accordingly a TKA starting design: standard MA with symmetric polyethylene (MA-Std, obtaining an orthogonal joint line), MA with asymmetric polyethylene (MA-Asymm, obtaining a physiological joint line), KA with tibial stem orthogonal to the tibial cut, and KA with tibial stem aligned to the tibial axis. Each model underwent a 2500 N vertical load simulating peak walking force. Polyethylene and bone stresses were extracted and compared in multiple regions of interest.
resultsTibio-femoral interaction showed distinct contact area and pressure patterns for each configuration. Differences were minor, but KA configurations exhibited larger contact areas medially and laterally than MA configurations. The MA-Std configuration showed a medial-to-lateral force ratio close to physiological (> 50%), while MA-Asymm and KA-Std exhibited slightly higher lateral forces. Bone-implant interaction differences were minimal, primarily localized in the proximal region, reflecting variations in medio-lateral load distribution.
conclusionsEach combination of alignment approach and prosthesis design produces a specific stress distribution at both tibio-femoral and prosthesis-bone interfaces. Surgeons should consider these biomechanical effects when selecting an implant and determining the alignment strategy to adopt.
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.