Higher Pelvic Incidence Was Associated with a Higher Risk of Sagittal Malposition of Femoral Component and Poor Outcomes of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spine–pelvis–lower extremity sagittal alignment is regarded as a global sagittal balance. Currently, there are few studies evaluating the pelvic and femoral sagittal alignment during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This retrospective study aims to elucidate how pelvic and femoral sagittal alignment affect clinical outcomes of primary TKA for osteoarthritis (OA) and determine the proper range of femoral sagittal alignment. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC), and patient satisfaction scores, and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs), including range of motion (ROM) and pelvic and femoral sagittal parameters, of 67 cases were evaluated (89 knees) before and 1 year after TKA. The angle between the distal femur anterior cortex line and flange of the femoral component (FC) was defined as the α angle. Correlations between the α angle and PROM and CRO were investigated using multivariate and secondary regression analyses. Patients were further divided into four cohorts (A, B, C, and D) according to the α angle, and comparisons of their postoperative PROM and ROM scores were performed. Postoperative PROM and ROM scores improved significantly compared with the preoperative scores (p < 0.01). Only the α angle was significantly associated with postoperative knee extension among all PROM and CRO indexes (p = 0.001). Secondary regression demonstrated a convex upward function, and the scores were the highest at α angles of 0.57, 0.96, and −1.42 degrees for postoperative KSS, satisfaction, and range of knee extension, respectively (p < 0.01). However, the concave upward degree was the lowest at an α angle of 0.33 degrees for pelvic incidence (p < 0.001). Bonferroni's paired comparisons indicated that postoperative KSS and satisfaction of the cohort B (0 degrees ≤ α angle ≤ 3 degrees) were better than those of other cohorts (p < 0.0125). The results indicate that surgeons should pay more attention to the sagittal alignment of FC in patients with increased pelvic incidence, the distal femoral anterior cortex is recommended as an anatomic landmark, and 0 to 3 degrees might be “safe zones” of the sagittal flexion of FC in TKA. This study reflects the 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".