ReviewClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Kinematic Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Unresolved Challenges and Barriers to Overcome for Universal Application.
Review in Clinics in orthopedic 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restoring patient-specific alignment in total knee arthroplasty has emerged as a promising approach to improve joint kinematics and reduce the need for soft-tissue release. Kinematic alignment (KA) and its variants-including restricted, inverse, and functional alignment-seek to replicate the patient's native joint line obliquity (JLO) and pre-arthritic alignment, often guided by classification systems such as the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK). However, despite the theoretical appeal, the universal adoption of KA remains controversial. This review highlights several concerns, including the risk of early loosening in varus-positioned components, the limited applicability of KA in advanced osteoarthritic knees, the difficulty of applying KA in severe valgus deformity, and the uncertainty in aligning the femoral cylindrical axis with the tibial rotational axis. Moreover, CPAK classification oversimplifies the spectrum of alignment phenotypes, even though JLO exhibits substantial variability in its distribution and its functional significance remains uncertain. Static measurements of JLO may not accurately reflect the dynamic behavior of the joint during gait, especially given compensatory mechanisms in adjacent joints. Evidence also shows poor correlation between 2-dimensional joint line parameters and 3-dimensional joint surface orientation. While restoring native alignment and JLO might remain a worthwhile goal, the limitations of existing classification systems and the paucity of supporting evidence should be acknowledged. KA and its variants offer the potential to restore patient-specific alignment and JLO while minimizing soft-tissue releases, but widespread adoption is limited by unresolved issues such as variability in JLO, unequal CPAK boundaries, and uncertain functional relevance. Until high-quality, long-term studies address these concerns, KA strategies should be applied selectively within safe limits.
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.