Kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: An up-to-date meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and imaging parameters of kinematic alignment (KA) and mechanical alignment (MA) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to evaluate whether patients undergoing KA-TKA benefited more than those undergoing MA-TKA. METHODS: Studies comparing the efficacy of KA-TKA and MA-TKA were included after searching and screening in the database, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Database Library. A total of 1420 patients were enrolled in the study, with 736 MA-TKA and 738 KA-TKA. The primary outcomes were postoperative knee function scores including KSS series, WOMAC, KOOS and OKS. Secondary outcomes included the operative time, the length of hospital stay, knee extension/flexion angle, and some imaging parameters. The risk of bias for included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborative risk-of-bias assessment tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS). RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in this meta-analysis (11 randomized controlled studies and 5 cohort studies). Primary outcomes: Knee Society score (KSS, MD = 8.36, 95% Cl: 0.83-15.90) and combined KSS (MD = 15.24, 95% CI: 5.41-25.07) were higher in KA-TKA than in MA-TKA, and other functional scores were not statistically significant in KA-TKA and MA-TKA, including knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Knee Function score (KFS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes: KA-TKA resulted in smaller medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) compared to MA-TKA. For other outcome measures, KA-TKA showed similar results compared to MA-TKA, including hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, extension/flexion angle, tibial component slope angle, joint line orientation angle (JLOA), the operation time, the length of hospital stay and ligament release rate. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis results, patients undergoing KA-TKA benefit as much as patients undergoing MA-TKA. KA may be a viable reference in total knee replacement.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.064 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".