ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2026
Rotational alignment of the native knee joint using magnetic resonance imaging compared to current optimal angles in total knee replacement.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rotational malalignment is a key contributing factor to poor patient satisfaction following total knee replacement (TKR). Currently accepted target points may not be optimal for all patients. The aim of this study was to assess rotational alignment of native knee joints using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Hypothesis: The rotational alignment in native knee joints is different to current published optimal angles of rotation in TKR and different anthropological measurements affect this rotation. Methods: Radiological cohort study evaluating MRI scans of native knee joints. A total of twelve rotational angle measurements of the distal femur and proximal tibia were analysed and compared with currently accepted values in TKR. Results: A total of 100 patients were evaluated. The posterior condylar angle (PCA) (mean 2.3°; range -3.1° to 5.8°) was significantly different to the conventional 3° used in TKR (p < 0.001), and was also significantly different between males (1.2°) and females (3.4°) ( Discussion: There were significant differences between rotational alignment of the native knee joint and the values considered optimal in TKR. Gender differences and significant correlations with anthropometric data highlight the need for a more tailored and individualised approach to rotational alignment in TKR.
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.