Varus alignment of the tibial component up to seven degrees is not associated with poor long‐term outcomes in a neutrally aligned total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effect of varus alignment of the tibial component on the outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. The hypothesis was that varus alignment of the tibial component might not affect the outcomes and survival of a neutrally aligned primary TKA. METHODS: A matched case-control study was designed between 66 patients with varus alignment of the tibial component and 66 with neutral alignment with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Functional outcome was assessed with the knee surgery scores (KSS) and reduced Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities questionnaire (WOMAC). Patient satisfaction was evaluated by a 0-10 visual analog scale. Radiological evaluation was performed at early postoperative and at final follow-up. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 11.9 (SD 2.6) years for both groups. The mean postoperative proximal tibial angle in the varus group was 85.0° (SD 0.9) and 88.8° (SD 0.9) in control group. At the final follow-up, there were no significant differences in KSS, WOMAC, range of motion or patient satisfaction. There were no differences in the coronal anatomical alignment of the TKA between groups. Revision of TKA was performed in four knees in the varus group, and one in control group, due to aseptic loosening of the tibial component in all cases. TKA survival at 10 years was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: The alignment of the tibial component up to 7° varus did not negatively affect implant survival, patient satisfaction, and function of a well-aligned TKA, with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 10 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".