Effect of Anatomic Joint-Line Obliquity Prostheses on Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Alignment in a Chinese Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification describes knee phenotypes based on limb alignment and joint-line obliquity (JLO). This study evaluates CPAK distribution in the Hong Kong population and assesses how prosthesis design affects CPAK reproducibility and clinical outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who underwent navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with adjusted mechanical alignment in a single institution in 2021. First, we analyzed the epidemiology of CPAK phenotypes in our population. Second, patients were divided into 2 propensity score-matched groups based on implant design: Journey II BCS TKA (JLO prothesis) vs Persona PS TKA (joint line neutral prothesis). Radiological outcomes (mechanical hip-knee-ankle angle, lateral distal femoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle) and clinical outcomes (range of motion, Knee Society Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, Forgotten Joint Score) assessed preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Results: Our CPAK distribution was comparable to that of other East Asian populations. The Journey II BCS TKA more effectively restored JLO and CPAK phenotypes compared to the Persona PS TKA. However, there was no statistically significant clinical correlation between the restoration of JLO, arithmetic HKA, and CPAK. Conclusions: Although radiological restoration improves with JLO prostheses, short-term clinical outcomes remain unaffected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".