ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Does applying CPAK classification boundaries using measurements from a surgical navigation system result in different class distributions? A retrospective assessment.
Article in Journal of experimental 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification defines knee phenotypes using two factors: arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) and joint line obliquity (JLO) measured via long leg radiographs (LLRs), which can produce errors due to variability in patient positioning. Navigation-based technology has been shown to increase accuracy and may be used where LLRs are not routine. Given this, we asked: (1) Does applying the CPAK classification system to measurements obtained from a surgical navigation system result in different class distributions when compared to LLRs? and (2) Given a mechanical alignment approach, what is the accuracy of a navigation-based system in delivering the targeted postoperative CPAK Type V classification? Methods: We analysed data from 4087 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures undertaken using surgical navigation at our institution between March 2007 and October 2022. Of these patients, 80 had preoperative LLRs from which medial proximal tibial ankle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) were measured to calculate aHKA and JLO. We compared the mean preoperative and postoperative distributions of these alignment variables and classified patients into CPAK types and compared CPAK class frequencies between pre and postoperative TKA. Results: The mean signed differences between preoperative MPTA and LDFA values measured using surgical navigation and LLRs were 0.2° ( Conclusions: While surgical navigation yields population-level CPAK distributions similar to LLRs, individual class assignment was preserved in only 38.8% of patients showing that measurement modality frequently alters phenotype classification. Discrepancies likely arise from differing angle definitions, cartilage assessment techniques and the non-weight-bearing nature of navigation compared to standing radiographs. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.