ArticleArthroplasty today2026
The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Classification May be Unreliable With Advanced Knee Arthritis.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Kinematic alignment (KA) seeks to restore native, prearthritic alignment, including the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) and joint line obliquity (JLO). Advanced osteoarthritis may alter these parameters through erosion, subchondral collapse, or insufficiency fracture, potentially misrepresenting the native coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) phenotype. Therefore, we sought to evaluate concordance in CPAK phenotype parameters between the severely arthritic knee and the contralateral healthy knee within the same patient. Methods: We performed a radiographic review of 578 patients with bilateral, weight-bearing, long-leg radiographs obtained prior to total knee arthroplasty. The inclusion criteria required a Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4 knee (arthritic) and a contralateral Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1 knee (healthy). Absolute side-to-side differences were calculated for aHKA, JLO, medial proximal tibial angle, and lateral distal femoral angle, with additional stratification based on the predominant compartment of arthritic degeneration (medial or lateral). Results: Ninety patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean absolute differences between healthy and arthritic knees were 3.5° for aHKA, 2.3° for JLO, 2.4° for medial proximal tibial angle, and 1.7° for lateral distal femoral angle. CPAK concordance between healthy and arthritic knees was limited, with matching phenotypes in only 41% of patients with medial arthritis and 50% with lateral arthritis. Conclusions: Advanced knee osteoarthritis may lead to permanent bony changes that alter the measured CPAK phenotype. Replicating this pathologic alignment during kinematic alignment total knee arthroplasty could result in unintended component malposition. Careful preoperative radiographic assessment is essential to identify and account for these deformities.
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.