ArticleBone & joint open2026
Patellofemoral outcomes after kinematic versus mechanical alignment in primary total knee arthroplasty : a focused scoping review of head-to-head comparative studies.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Concerns persist that kinematic alignment (KA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may adversely affect the patellofemoral (PF) joint, because most contemporary components were developed under mechanical alignment (MA) principles. This focused scoping review mapped head-to-head comparative clinical evidence on PF outcomes after KA versus MA TKA, and identified key evidence gaps relevant to clinical decision-making. Methods: A focused scoping review was conducted. PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 15 January 2026. We included head-to-head comparative studies directly comparing KA and MA in primary TKA that reported at least one PF-related outcome. PF outcomes were mapped into three domains: 1) PF symptoms and PF-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); 2) PF-related interventions and complications; and 3) PF imaging/radiological measures. Findings were synthesized descriptively. Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Domain A was addressed by only one study and was insufficient for definitive conclusions. Domain B was addressed by six studies; no consistent signal of higher PF-related interventions/complications with KA was identified, and several studies reported numerically fewer PF-related procedures with KA, including lateral retinacular release. Domain C was addressed by ten studies and showed heterogeneous imaging findings; when PF radiological differences were observed, they were not consistently accompanied by worse symptoms or higher PF-related intervention rates. Postoperative rotational alignment was inconsistently assessed. Conclusion: Current head-to-head comparative evidence is insufficient to determine the definitive PF-specific clinical impact of KA versus MA, mainly because PF-specific PROMs are rarely reported. Although no consistent harm signal was identified, this should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence. This review primarily defines current evidence gaps, including the need for prespecified PF-specific PROMs, systematic rotational verification, consistent reporting of PF-related interventions/complications, and longer follow-up.
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.