ArticleArthroplasty (London, England)2026
Reliability of the CPAK classification assessed on long-leg X-rays in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-specific knee alignment is regarded as a major target for improving total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification has been proposed to capture the native patient-specific knee alignment, according to the Joint Line Obliquity (JLO) and arithmetic Hip Knee Ankle angle (aHKA), themselves based on the Lateral Distal Femoral Angle (LDFA) and Medial Proximal Tibial Angle (MPTA). This study aims to evaluate intra-operator, inter-operator, and test-retest reliability of the CPAK classification and associated angles in both knees with osteoarthritis (KOA) and TKA.
methodsFrom our local arthroplasty registry, patients who sequentially underwent TKA on both knees within 18 months, with long-leg X-rays before and after each surgery between 2018 and 2023, were retrospectively selected. The contralateral knees before the 1st and 2nd TKA were used as test-retest for KOA and TKA knee, respectively. Four operators with increasing experience performed two measures of MPTA and LDFA for each image. The intra-operator, inter-operator, and test-retest reliability were assessed with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC(3,1)), Smallest Detectable Change (SDC), and Cohen's Kappa.
resultsThe study included 34 patients. Angles showed good to excellent ICC apart from JLO in the KOA condition (moderate). Measures of LDFA on KOA and all TKA angles presented good to excellent SDC (< 3°), including test-retest conditions. MPTA, JLO, and aHKA on KOA showed moderate SDC (< 4.2°). CPAK classification was moderate to substantial for KOA (Kappa of 0.5 to 0.64) and substantial to almost perfect for TKA (Kappa of 0.69 to 0.81). Reliability increased with experience.
conclusionsFor experienced operators, CPAK classification and associated angles demonstrated levels of inter-rater reliability acceptable for clinical use in knees with TKA but at the limit of acceptability for knees with severe OA. In severe OA, one should interpret CPAK types cautiously, and angles may be preferable. MPTA in the knees with OA appeared as the main factor undermining reliability. Clarification on this angle may be needed to improve reliability, especially when using philosophies aiming at restoring the native alignment. Finally, test-retest reliability levels suggested that these measures are appropriate for longitudinal assessment.
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.