MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416199454 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70557

Kinematic alignment without femoral cartilage‐wear compensation for apex‐distal joint line obliquity: Effects on component alignment

2025· article· en· W4416199454 on OpenAlex
Tsutomu Maeda, T.D.V. Cooke, M. Kubo, Kazutaka So, Shinji Imai

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsJoint (building)Component (thermodynamics)Compensation (psychology)Line (geometry)Orthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Purpose Pronounced apex‐distal joint line obliquity (JLO) complicates total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by challenging patellofemoral tracking and medial tibial bone support. Joint line obliquity–modified kinematic alignment (JLO‐KA)—a selective modification of kinematic alignment (KA) that omits femoral cartilage‐wear compensation and reallocates correction to the tibial side—was developed. This study quantified postoperative component and limb alignment with JLO‐KA versus true KA. Methods Retrospective comparison of 20 JLO‐KA knees and 15 true‐KA knees with preoperative apex‐distal JLO (CPAK I–III). Pre‐/postoperative computed tomography (CT) measured lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), femoral component rotation (FCR), arithmetic hip–knee–ankle angle (aHKA), and JLO; postoperative Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) distribution was analysed ( Δ = JLO‐KA minus true KA). Results Groups were similar at baseline: preoperative LDFA 87.7° versus 87.6°, MPTA 83.5° versus 83.5°, aHKA −4.3° versus −4.1°, JLO 171.2° versus 171.2° (all p > 0.05). Postoperatively, JLO‐KA increased LDFA to 90.4° ± 2.3° versus 87.0° ± 1.9° ( Δ = +3.4°, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9–4.8; p < 0.0001), MPTA to 88.0° ± 1.4° versus 85.6° ± 2.0° ( Δ = +2.4°, 1.1–3.7; p = 0.0015), and FCR to 3.1° ± 2.0° versus 0.1° ± 2.0° ( Δ = +2.9°, 1.5–4.3; p = 0.0002), while aHKA was similar (−2.4° ± 3.1° vs. −1.4° ± 2.8°; Δ = −1.0°; p = 0.324). JLO was closer to neutral with JLO‐KA (178.4° ± 2.2° vs. 172.7° ± 2.8°; Δ = +5.8°; p < 0.001). Neutral‐JLO CPAK types (IV–VI) occurred in 16/20 (80%) versus 2/15 (13%) ( p = 0.00013). The restricted KA 90° ± 5° range for LDFA and MPTA was met by 19/20 (95%) versus 7/15 (47%) ( p = 0.0019). Conclusion Reallocating cartilage‐wear compensation from the medial femur to the medial tibia within the same calliper‐verified workflow reduced femoral valgus, limited tibial varus, and increased femoral external rotation by ≈3° while maintaining aHKA. Shifts were consistent with lateralizing the prosthetic trochlear groove and preserving medial tibial bone support, positioning JLO‐KA as a targeted option for apex‐distal knees (CPAK I–III). Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.299 · 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