MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413257922 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.25.00101

No Superiority of Total Knee Arthroplasty Alignment Philosophies

2025· article· en· W4413257922 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeConfidence intervalMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyMEDLINEOxford knee scoreSurgeryPhysical therapyInternal medicineOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) philosophies exist, with different component and limb alignment targets, there is no consensus on which is superior. This study compared outcomes among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TKAs performed to achieve mechanical (MA), anatomical (AA), kinematic (KA), restricted KA (rKA), and functional alignment (FA). METHODS: Scopus, Ovid/MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were queried in April 2025 (PROSPERO: CRD420251017962). A frequentist model network meta-analysis of eligible prospective RCTs assessed complications, revisions, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using P-scores. RESULTS: Among 3,605 studies, 22 RCTs totaling 1,411 patients (1,428 primary TKAs) with median (interquartile range) age of 68.2 years (6.8) and follow-up of 29.1 months (48) were included for meta-analysis. The distribution of alignment philosophies was MA (n = 708, 49.6%), AA (n = 101, 7.1%), KA (n = 394, 27.6%), rKA (n = 160, 11.2%), or FA (n = 65, 4.6%). Compared to MA, the mean Knee Society Score (KSS) knee score improvements from baseline were statistically lower (worse) with AA (mean difference [MD] -0.503; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.96 to -0.04; p = 0.0320) and KA (MD -0.623; 95% CI -1.07 to -0.18; p = 0.006), and mean KSS combined changes were also statistically lower (worse) with KA (MD -0.314; 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; p = 0.009) versus MA. However, each statistically significant change had high heterogeneity and failed to reach the minimum clinically important difference. There were no significant changes in the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Indices, KSS function, Oxford Knee, or Forgotten Joint scores among each alignment philosophy. In addition, postoperative knee flexion, complications, and reoperation rates with or without implant removal were similar among all techniques. CONCLUSION: This study found no clinically meaningful difference in PROs nor complication rates among TKA alignment philosophies, supporting comparable short-term to mid-term outcomes. However, longer follow-up is required to accurately assess implant failure and revision rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it