ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
AI-assisted preoperative planning improves component sizing accuracy in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study with 24-month follow-up.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate implant sizing is critical for clinical outcomes in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), yet reliable preoperative planning remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate whether AI-assisted preoperative planning improves component sizing accuracy compared with conventional intraoperative instrumentation and to explore factors associated with component coverage.
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted including 190 patients (190 knees) undergoing primary Oxford UKA between February 2022 and January 2024. Patients were categorized into the AI-assisted group (n = 94) or the conventional group (n = 96). Radiographic sizing accuracy of femoral and tibial components was assessed postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the HSS score at predefined intervals of 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with inaccurate sizing in the AI-assisted group.
resultsThe AI-assisted group demonstrated significantly higher radiographic sizing accuracy than the conventional group for the femoral component (81.91 vs. 63.54%, P = 0.005), tibial component (85.12 vs. 67.71%, P = 0.005), and both components (70.21 vs. 51.04%, P = 0.007). Patients with accurate sizing of both components achieved higher HSS scores at 24 months compared with those with at least one inaccurately sized component (92.50 ± 4.00 vs. 89.32 ± 3.96, P < 0.001). Within the AI-assisted group, agreement between planned and actual posterior condylar resection (OR = 0.249, P = 0.025) and acceptable femoral sagittal angle (OR = 0.252, P = 0.020) were independent predictors of femoral sizing accuracy. No significant independent predictors were identified for tibial inaccurate sizing.
conclusionsAI-assisted preoperative planning was associated with improved radiographic component sizing accuracy in Oxford UKA compared with conventional instrumentation. While no significant differences in HSS scores were observed at 6 and 12 months, patients with accurate sizing of both components demonstrated significantly better functional recovery at the 24-month follow-up. The reliability of AI-assisted femoral sizing depends on precise intraoperative execution of planned resection and alignment parameters.
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.