Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 39876541

Knee Phenotypes Distribution According to CPAK Classification in Turkish Population

Overview
Journal Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc
Date 2025 Jan 29
PMID 39876541
Authors
Vahit Emre Ozden
Goksel Dikmen
Kayahan Karaytug
Arda Mavi
Yilmaz Onat Koyluoglu
Ismail Remzi Tozun
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the distribution of knee phenotypes based on the CPAK classification in healthy nonarthritic subjects and osteoarthritic patients in Türkiye.

Methods: Radiological EOS analysis of nonarthritic 1172 knees and osteoarthritic 571 knees was evaluated to clarify the distribution of CPAK classification. The knees were categorized into 9 subgroups according to the arithmetic hip-knee-ankle (aHKA) angle and joint-line obliquity (JLO). The medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA) were used to calculate aHKA and JLO. The Sectra workstation program was used for all radiological measurements.

Results: In the nonarthritic group, CPAK distribution was 20.9% type I (n=245), 2.5% type II (n=30), 0.08% type III (n=1), 46.67% type IV (n=545), 7.7% type V (n=91), 0.7% type VI (n=9), 18% type VII (n=211), 2.9% type VIII (n=35), 0.2% type IX (n=3). The mean JLO was 173.7 ± 4.38, and the mean aHKA was 0.15 ± 3.81 in nonarthritic group. Arthritic group CPAK type distribution was 20.7% type I (n=118), 3.1% type II (n=18), 0.17% type III (n=1), 57.1% type IV (n=326), 8.4% type V (n=48), 0.17% type VI (n=1), 7.8% type VII (n=45), 1.4% type VIII (n=8), and 0.8% type IX (n=5). The mean JLO was 174.2 ± 3.78, and the mean aHKA was !2.21 ± 4.48 in the osteoarthritic group.

Conclusion: CPAK type IV and CPAK type I were the most common subgroups in the nonarthritic and arthritic groups. CPAK type 5, which is the target of the mechanical alignment strategy, is only 7.8% in the nonarthritic group and 8.4% in the osteoarthritic group in the Turkish population.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, Diagnostic Study.

References
1.
Hsu C, Chen C, Wang S, Huang J, Tong K, Huang K . Validation and modification of the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee classification in the Asian population. Bone Jt Open. 2022; 3(3):211-217. PMC: 8965787. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.33.BJO-2022-0001.R1. View
2.
Riviere C, Iranpour F, Auvinet E, Howell S, Vendittoli P, Cobb J . Alignment options for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017; 103(7):1047-1056. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.010. View
3.
Sappey-Marinier E, Batailler C, Swan J, Schmidt A, Cheze L, MacDessi S . Mechanical alignment for primary TKA may change both knee phenotype and joint line obliquity without influencing clinical outcomes: a study comparing restored and unrestored joint line obliquity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021; 30(8):2806-2814. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-021-06674-w. View
4.
Pagan C, Karasavvidis T, LeBrun D, Jang S, MacDessi S, Vigdorchik J . Geographic Variation in Knee Phenotypes Based on the Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Classification: A Systematic Review. J Arthroplasty. 2023; 38(9):1892-1899.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.03.047. View
5.
Toyooka S, Osaki Y, Masuda H, Arai N, Miyamoto W, Ando S . Distribution of Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee Classification in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis in Japan. J Knee Surg. 2022; 36(7):738-743. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1742645. View