ReviewMusculoskeletal surgery2026
Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of medium to long-term outcomes.
Review in Musculoskeletal surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesTo compare medium- to long-term patient-reported outcomes, objective function, pain, range of motion, and revision/reoperation risk between kinematic (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using randomized trials.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing KA and MA in primary TKA with ≥ 24 months follow-up were identified through PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Pooled mean or standardized mean differences and risk ratios were calculated using random-effects models. Outcomes were stratified into mid-term (24-60 months) and long-term (> 60 months) windows. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
resultsTen unique RCTs (13 articles, 934 knees, follow-up 2-13 years) were included. Mid-term analyses favored KA in Forgotten Joint Score (MD 4.06, 95% CI 2.39-5.74), WOMAC (MD -5.51, 95% CI -10.27 to -0.74), and VAS pain (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.19). Long-term follow-up revealed no significant functional differences. Revision risks were comparable (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59-2.93). Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate (OKS, VAS) to very low (FJS, WOMAC, KSS, ROM).
conclusionKA yields modest mid-term improvements in awareness and pain over MA, though differences rarely reached clinical importance thresholds. Long-term outcomes, survivorship, and complications were comparable. KA is a viable personalized TKA strategy, pending confirmation from larger randomized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42606776What 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.