MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415734459 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70476

High coronal alignment accuracy and satisfactory early outcomes using augmented reality assisted kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty

2025· article· en· W4415734459 on OpenAlex
Giorgio Cacciola, Francesco Bosco, Daniele Vezza, Matteo Schirò, Francesco Carturan, Gianpaolo Gazziero, Marco Bufalo, Luigi Sabatini

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

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAugmented realityKinematicsCoronal planeTotal knee arthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Accurate component positioning in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is critical for implant longevity and patient satisfaction. Augmented reality (AR)‐based navigation systems offer enhanced precision and intraoperative versatility. This study evaluated the accuracy of component positioning, implant sizing and short‐term clinical outcomes of a novel AR‐assisted navigation system (NextAR, Medacta International) in TKA using a modified kinematic alignment (KA) technique. Methods Forty‐one consecutive patients underwent primary TKA using AR‐assisted navigation with ≥12‐month follow‐up. Preoperative CT‐based 3D planning optimised cut orientation and component placement. All received a cemented medial pivot prosthesis (GMK Sphere) with full femoral resurfacing following a KA protocol. Tibial cuts were guided intraoperatively by real‐time ligament balancing. Planned versus achieved positions were compared on radiographs. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), forgotten joint score (FJS) and range of motion (ROM) were recorded pre‐ and postoperatively and analysed using paired t ‐tests ( p < 0.05). Results The average difference between planned and postoperative alignment was 0.05° ± 0.76° for LDFA, 0.1° ± 0.6° for MPTA, –0.5 ± 1.7° for femoral component flexion, and 0.3° ± 1.3° for PTS. Root mean square errors were 0.75°, 1.23°, 1.73° and 1.34°, respectively. Postoperative HKA improved from 174.3° ± 3.4° to 177.8° ± 2.1° ( p < 0.001). Component size prediction was accurate in 100% of femurs and 95.1% of tibias. At final follow‐up (14.2 ± 2.3 months), WOMAC improved from 51.5 ± 16.7 to 13.6 ± 5.3, FJS from 26.2 ± 9.6 to 82.2 ± 7.4, flexion from 103.3° ± 17.4° to 129.4° ± 7.2° and extension from 3.3° ± 0.43° to 0.1° ± 0.28° (all p < 0.001). Conclusions AR‐based navigation in modified KA‐TKA ensured accurate LDFA restoration and femoral sizing, with good short‐term outcomes. Variability remained in MPTA, femoral flexion and PTS. Although no coronal recuts were needed, two tibial recuts for tight extension gaps highlight areas for system refinement. Level of Evidence Level IV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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