Significant correlations between postoperative outcomes and various limb and component alignment strategies in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics

Table 6 Reported KSS and OKS based on different postoperative axial alignment of the components

Author (year)	Measured angles	Mean ± SD (range)^b	KSS knee score^a, mean ± SD (range)	KSS function score^a, mean ± SD	OKS^a, mean ± SD	OKS recovery^a
Inui (2020) [17]	RFC RTC TIR extension TIR flexion 90°	-2.0° ± 3.8 (-4.0 to 9.6) 0.0° ± 4.1 (-12.5 to 8.6) -0.3° ± 6.4 5.4° ± 6.4	86.9 ± 9.4	81.8 ± 16.4
Iriberri (2014) [18]	Tibia ER	11.9° (-1 to 32)	79 (28–100)	79 (5–100)
Kamenaga (2018) [21]	Alpha Beta	4.0° ± 4.6 (-6.4 to 12.7) 2.43° ± 4.15 (-5.6 to 9.8)		80.4 ± 15.3	37.2 ± 7.9	10.2 ± 8.0
Ng (2020) [25]	Femoral ER Tibia ER TIR extension	4.8° ± 3.6 (0 to 25) 7.5° ± 5.5 (-5 to 20.1) 2.7° ± 6.8 (-13.8 to 17.8)	92.33 ± 7.39	73.27 ± 15.41	39.71 ± 3.33

Abbreviations: KSS Knee Society Score, OKS Oxford Knee Score, RFC rotational femoral component angle, RTC rotational tibia component angle, TIR tibia component internal rotation angle relative to the femoral component, Alpha angle between component and Akagi’s line, Beta angle between component and line perpendicular to surgical epicondyles axis (SEA), IR internal rotation, ER external rotation, SD standard deviation
^aScores at last follow-up
^bNegative values are IR and positive values are ER